On 5/16/2013 5:22 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: > Hi Xuelei > > I'm busy on something else, so probably have no time (or cannot > concentrate) to read in details. > Not urgent fix, so please review these request only when you available.
> In my opinion, there are several cases as to whether to clone or not: > > 1. MUST NOT clone, because the value must be shared so that change at > one side appears on the other side. > > 2. MUST clone, public available methods that leads to security issues. > > 3. So so, although public methods, cannot be used to do bad things. > > 4. Not an issue. Internal methods. > > In the patch, are the first two cases #1 or #3. > It's #2. For #1 and #3, I added a few comment lines in 8010815. > Sorry I also have no time to read > > JDK-8010814, More buffers are stored or returned without cloning > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8010815/webrev.00/ > > but I am not sure if those env cases belong to #1. > I think both fixes are for #2. Xuelei > Thanks > Max > > > On 5/16/13 5:08 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There is another fix to avoid the use of mutable objects. >> >> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8010814/webrev.00/ >> >> Thanks, >> Xuelei >>
