On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:06:35 GMT, liach wrote:
>> Upon review of [8261407](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261407),
>> by design, duplicate initialization of ReflectionFactory should be safe as
>> it performs side-effect-free property read actions, and the suggesting of
>> making
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:35:09 GMT, liach wrote:
>> liach has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
>> a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in
>> by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 13 additional commits since
>> the last
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:06:35 GMT, liach wrote:
>> Upon review of [8261407](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261407),
>> by design, duplicate initialization of ReflectionFactory should be safe as
>> it performs side-effect-free property read actions, and the suggesting of
>> making
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:35:09 GMT, liach wrote:
>> liach has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
>> a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in
>> by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 13 additional commits since
>> the last
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:06:35 GMT, liach wrote:
>> Upon review of [8261407](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261407),
>> by design, duplicate initialization of ReflectionFactory should be safe as
>> it performs side-effect-free property read actions, and the suggesting of
>> making
> Upon review of [8261407](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261407),
> by design, duplicate initialization of ReflectionFactory should be safe as it
> performs side-effect-free property read actions, and the suggesting of making
> the `initted` field volatile cannot prevent concurrent
