On 12/13/18 2:34 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > Should I prepare a webrev for this change?
No, I think we are all set (thanks Martin!) https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215359 > > -Patrick > > Am 13.12.18 um 15:15 schrieb Doug Lea: >> On 12/13/18 8:44 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: >>> This special case could have been handled also by the >>> InnocuousForkJoinWorkerThread >>> could in my opinion be relaxed to accept null or the system classloader >>> to be set >>> using setContextClassLoader() >> Thanks. We should/will do this. The unconditional throw was clearly too >> strong; innocuous calls can be allowed. This doesn't address the general >> issues of dynamic security manager installation, but at least removes an >> obstacle for people trying to cope. >> >> I created CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215359 >> >> -Doug > > >
