Re: Request for approval for bug #8031488

2014-01-11 Thread Alan Bateman
On 10/01/2014 16:28, Iaroslav Savytskyi wrote: : There are 3 possibilities: 1) Because it was my own initiative to fix this potential synchronization bug and nobody didn’t report it, we can approve my fix and leave this 2 classes without synchronized getters. And fix it in MR. 2) Fix it as you

Request for approval for bug #8031488

2014-01-10 Thread Iaroslav Savytskyi
Hello, I would like to request for approval for this fix. This is simple revert of the changes which caused the issue. I’ve returned back synchronization and removed volatile. So now serialVersionUID is the same as before. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8031488 Webrev:

Re: Request for approval for bug #8031488

2014-01-10 Thread Iaroslav Savytskyi
Hi, Alan, You are absolutely right. Unfortunately the things a little bit more complicated. The reason why I’m fixing this now is, that some time ago I fix this synchronization issue (synchronized setter without synchronized getter). After that I got this bug. We had internal discussions if I

Re: Request for approval for bug #8031488

2014-01-10 Thread Alan Bateman
On 10/01/2014 15:08, Iaroslav Savytskyi wrote: Hi, Alan, You are absolutely right. Unfortunately the things a little bit more complicated. The reason why I’m fixing this now is, that some time ago I fix this synchronization issue (synchronized setter without synchronized getter). After that

Re: Request for approval for bug #8031488

2014-01-10 Thread Iaroslav Savytskyi
On 10 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote: On 10/01/2014 15:08, Iaroslav Savytskyi wrote: Hi, Alan, You are absolutely right. Unfortunately the things a little bit more complicated. The reason why I’m fixing this now is, that some time ago I fix this