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
On 10 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Alan Bateman 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 synchronization issue (
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 I
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 c
On 10/01/2014 14:26, Iaroslav Savytskyi wrote:
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.openj
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:
http://
