Re: Should Lance be a member of the core libraries group?

2009-02-27 Thread Alan Bateman
Iris Clark wrote: Hi, Alan. Before I consider initiating the CFV, I have one question. Is JDBC really considered part of Core Libraries? We want to make sure that Core Libraries does not become the catch-all for APIs that don't belong anywhere else. You are right and that is the real

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Bob Lee
I have a simpler and more secure solution. I just need one method on ClassLoader: public class ClassLoader { public void keepReferenceTo(Object o) { ... } ... } The ClassLoader would keep a strong reference to the passed reference indefinitely (using some sort of minimal memory

Re: Should Lance be a member of the core libraries group?

2009-02-27 Thread Lance J. Andersen
Alan Bateman wrote: Iris Clark wrote: Hi, Alan. Before I consider initiating the CFV, I have one question. Is JDBC really considered part of Core Libraries? We want to make sure that Core Libraries does not become the catch-all for APIs that don't belong anywhere else. You are right

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread David M. Lloyd
On 02/27/2009 12:10 PM, Bob Lee wrote: I have a simpler and more secure solution. I just need one method on ClassLoader: public class ClassLoader { public void keepReferenceTo(Object o) { ... } ... } The ClassLoader would keep a strong reference to the passed reference indefinitely

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Bob Lee
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote: Seems like a reasonable alternate approach, *however* I think there ought to be a way to clear the reference as well, Do you have a use case? *If* we wanted to support removals (I don't think we should), I would do

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Bob Lee
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote: A couple use cases, off the top of my head: 1) I've got a set of FooBars that associate with Classes; now for whatever reason, I want to change the FooBar that is associated with the Class.  The old FooBar is now

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread David M. Lloyd
On 02/27/2009 01:15 PM, Bob Lee wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote: A couple use cases, off the top of my head: 1) I've got a set of FooBars that associate with Classes; now for whatever reason, I want to change the FooBar that is associated

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Bob Lee
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:44 AM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote: WeakHashMapClass?, Externalizer() *fails* because Externalizer instances are usually customized to the class they externalize (which, by the way, could well be a system class). This means that Externalizer keeps a

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Bob Lee
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote: I don't think you understood what I wrote I understood. I just think you're trying to solve a problem that no one really has. 99% of the time, the problem is with a class from a parent class loader keeping a strong

hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 6799689: Make sun.misc.FloatingDecimal.hexFloatPattern static field initialized lazily

2009-02-27 Thread mandy . chung
Changeset: de1d02ad2d1d Author:mchung Date: 2009-02-27 13:43 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/de1d02ad2d1d 6799689: Make sun.misc.FloatingDecimal.hexFloatPattern static field initialized lazily Summary: Lazily initialize the hexFloatPattern static field

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Bob Lee
There's no need for insults, David. Have some perspective. I've been nothing but civil and respectful (even after you presumed to know what I do and don't understand). On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:12 PM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote: I'm not talking about a parent/child relationship

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread David M. Lloyd
On 02/27/2009 03:51 PM, Bob Lee wrote: There's no need for insults, David. Have some perspective. I've been nothing but civil and respectful (even after you presumed to know what I do and don't understand). I haven't insulted you that I am aware of, only stated the facts as I see them.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Class- and class loader-local storage (Bug ID #6493635)

2009-02-27 Thread Kevin Bourrillion
This thread needs a third perspective (which I can't provide for lack of expertise). On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.comwrote: On 02/27/2009 03:51 PM, Bob Lee wrote: There's no need for insults, David. Have some perspective. I've been nothing but civil

hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 6809504: Remove enctype=text/xml from the offline registration page

2009-02-27 Thread mandy . chung
Changeset: 0da45c759116 Author:mchung Date: 2009-02-27 16:34 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/0da45c759116 6809504: Remove enctype=text/xml from the offline registration page Summary: Remove enctype=text/xml from register.html and other localized versions