And, to clarify, the super-lazy property fix is currently only targeted to JDK10. A case would need to be made to
back-port it to any update releases once it is fixed there. We haven't seen or presented such a case at this point so
we are only planning to fix it in JDK10 and Tom has indicated
As mentionned at the beginning of the thread, in FX8 you can roll your
custom implementation. I did not yet had the time to test the changes
Jim made :-(
Tom
On 27.07.17 13:41, Jose Martinez wrote:
> Just curious, did this make it to the 8u144 release? If not, any idea
> which release (or when)
No, this fix hasn't yet been reviewed and pushed. When it is it will go
into JDK 10.
-- Kevin
Jose Martinez wrote:
Just curious, did this make it to the 8u144 release? If not, any idea which
release (or when) we can expect it?
Thank youjose
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Just curious, did this make it to the 8u144 release? If not, any idea which
release (or when) we can expect it?
Thank youjose
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 08:38:41 PM EDT, Jim Graham
wrote:
Thanks Tom, I've already posted a patch for 8180938 (lazy
Thanks Tom, I've already posted a patch for 8180938 (lazy property creation). Check it out and let me know how it
performs for you.
I have a couple of changes to make to it (and an independent memory usage test to write) before I send it out for formal
review...
Hi,
I created:
- https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180935
- https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180938
I'll work on a showcase to find out how much memory one can save.
Tom
On 04.05.17 23:33, Jim Graham wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Those look like good suggestions. I would file bugs in
Hi Tom,
Those look like good suggestions. I would file bugs in JBS and create them
separately:
- Bug for lazy property creation in path elements
- Feature request for lower-memory paths
Did you benchmark how much the lazy properties, on their own, would save your
application?