but do they release 1.2 and 5.0 also to the public, or only to paying customers?
LieGrue, strub --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeil <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Udo Schnurpfeil <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308 > To: "MyFaces Development" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 12:14 PM > BTW: The hotfix from Oracle is for > 1.4, 5.0 and 6.0. > > Regards > > Udo > > Am 10.02.11 12:06, schrieb Mark Struberg: > > txs 4 the review! > > > >> But the hotfix also rejects numbers like > >> 2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so abnormal. > > not abnormal but still moderately unlikely. > > > > I agree for a long term scenario. > > > > Basically the default should be to disable this > workaround and to make it available via configuration. Btw, > it seems that Oracle finally reacted and will hopefully ship > a fixed JVM 1.6 soon (no help for Java5 users of course). > > > >> The fix should also be done for 1.2, because many > >> productive systems using it. > > +1 > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeil<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> From: Udo Schnurpfeil<[email protected]> > >> Subject: About the JVM bug with > 2.2250738585072012e-00308 > >> To: "MyFaces Development"<[email protected]> > >> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:59 AM > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've some comments to the JVM bug for the bad > number > >> 2.2250738585072012e-00308 > >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3024) > >> > >> The problem occures for values which are "very > very low". > >> But the hotfix also rejects numbers like > >> 2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so abnormal. > >> > >> Would it not be better, when the hotfix is > configurable (be > >> default turned on), so that the admin can switch > it off, > >> when the JVM bugfix is applied? > >> > >> The fix should also be done for 1.2, because many > >> productive systems using it. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Udo > >> > >> > > > > > > >
