On 7/2/2010 11:56 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Hi Dan,
I don't know what AnonLoggerWeakRefTest looks like,
Check out the webrevs in the review requests. I included the
tests in the those reviews.
but I am fairly
confident that if you create a few million loggers and then drop down
to one or two
Hi Dan,
I don't know what AnonLoggerWeakRefTest looks like, but I am fairly
confident that if you create a few million loggers and then drop down
to one or two, the backing array of the Hashtable will still be bigger
than it should be.
Still, no real harm done - that's a fairly unusual situation.
Jeremy,
Closing the loop on this part of the thread. I don't think there are
any more leaks left after the fix is applied. Here are the entries
I added the "public comments" section of the bug. For some reason
that bug is _still_ not showing up on the OpenJDK site.
=== *Public Comments* ===
On 6/24/2010 9:35 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 21 June 2010 22:29, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
David H. and Alan B.,
Since you two were first round code reviewers, it would be good to hear
from you guys on the second round.
Jeremy,
It would also be good to hear from you since you had a
On 21 June 2010 22:29, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> David H. and Alan B.,
>
> Since you two were first round code reviewers, it would be good to hear
> from you guys on the second round.
>
> Jeremy,
>
> It would also be good to hear from you since you had also fixed this
> bug in Google's code bas
On 6/23/2010 12:38 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'm sorry I missed this (I heavily filter these lists, and check rarely).
This time I specifically left you on the "To" list rather than
editing down to just the list aliases.
My main feeling is that you are missing a good bet by not
Hi Daniel,
I'm sorry I missed this (I heavily filter these lists, and check rarely).
My main feeling is that you are missing a good bet by not
reconstructing the Hashtable in LogManager and the ArrayList in Logger
every so often when you remove the loggers. In a test case where
there are a LOT o
On 6/22/2010 2:34 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/1/
Thanks, in advance, for any reviews.
Sorry for the late reply. Using the reference queue is much better.
I've looked through the new
Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
:
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/1/
Thanks, in advance, for any reviews.
Sorry for the late reply. Using the reference queue is much better. I've
looked through the new webrev and the approach seems reasonable.
Folks,
We missed the T&L JDK7-B100 cutoff which was Monday @ 1800 PT.
That means this fix will hit the various update releases before
it hits JDK7. At this point, I'm really going to need those
re-reviews in order to make a good case that this fix can go
into an update without bake time in JDK7.
David H. and Alan B.,
Since you two were first round code reviewers, it would be good to hear
from you guys on the second round.
Jeremy,
It would also be good to hear from you since you had also fixed this
bug in Google's code base.
At this point, I've heard from Eamonn McManus and Tony Printe
Credit where credit is due...
That was David Holmes *and* Alan Bateman that were politely pushing me
to put limits on the number of Logger objects being cleaned up...
Dan
On 6/18/2010 1:25 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I have a new version of my fix for the WeakReference leak in
Greetings,
I have a new version of my fix for the WeakReference leak in the
Logging API done. This version uses ReferenceQueues; thanks to Eamonn
McManus, Jeremy Manson and Tony Printezis for their insights on using
ReferenceQueues. Here's a pointer to Tony's paper for background info:
http:
13 matches
Mail list logo
