My vote counts? Great ;) +1
On 05/22/2010 09:22 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
As you may have noticed over the past couple of days (ha), there has been quite a bit of discussion over what seemed at the time like a very trivial change in WICKET-2846 [*]. The end result is that it does not break any existing applications that don't already have a bug. However, if the application is already faulty in the way it uses threads (perhaps even due to a bug within Java related to cleaning up Java2D threads), then the change in WICKET-2846 can exacerbate the issue. On the flip side, the "enhancement" in WICKET-2846 is of very minor value to only a very small subset of cases that should rarely be used since they would not be considered best practices. And, if it were reverted, there would be fairly easy ways to get the same functionality without this change. So, I leave it to the community to vote on this. Because I feel neither +1 or -1 on this issue, my (binding) vote will go to whatever non-binding majority wins. So, in this case, *every vote counts* - even if your vote is typically non-binding. As one last comment, please: we don't need any more long-running discussions or diatribes on this. We already know this issue intimately. Please simply vote, and if you must, provide a simple reason why you're voting the way you are. [ ] +1 - revert WICKET-2846 in the next release (in other words, get rid of the InheritableThreadLocal) [ ] -1 - leave everything exactly as it is (in other words, keep the InheritableThreadLocal) [*] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2846 Best regards, -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
