On 13 December 2010 20:04, Neil Richards <neil.richa...@ngmr.net> wrote: > On 13 December 2010 18:46, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: >> I haven't looked at your patch in detail yet but I suspect there may be >> similar issues in other places (like j.u.Hashtable) once you are done with >> Vector. > > You are correct, there is a similar issue in Hashtable. > I'm currently in the process of working up another fix and testcase > for that, which I hope to submit separately shortly.
I now notice that there isn't a bug in Java bug database exactly for the problem in Hashtable - though it's obviously related to 6934356, and to 4741471 (which removed writeObject() synchronization from the unsynchronized collection classes). (As in Vector, the problem in Hashtable has existed since 1.4). In this case, can I raise an entry in the OpenJDK bug database for the problem in Hashtable, or do I need to get it raised in the Java bug database? Any guidance gratefully received, Thanks, Neil PS: What is the standard way of referring to a bug from one system or the other? Or are the bug numbers from each system sufficiently far apart to avoid ambiguity that way? -- Unless stated above: Work email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
