Max, Good catch to find this bug!
Some comments: 1) I don't get why salt now becomes transient. I don't see that it has any effect on how the object is cloned and class is not Serializable. 2) You should be able to remove L128 in the new file. The cloned object will have same value for nameType, and since it is a primitive there shouldn't be an issue. 3) You should be able to replace the arraycopy with nameStrings.clone(). The array elements are immutable Strings, right? -Chris. On 21/04/2010 04:56, Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi Anyone can review this code change? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/6856069/webrev.00/ Thanks Max Begin forwarded message:*Change Request ID*: 6856069 *Synopsis*: PrincipalName.clone() does not invoke super.clone() === *Description* ============================================================ PrincipalName's clone() method does not invoke super.clone(), and it has a child class ServiceName. This means the clone of a ServiceName object is not of type ServiceName. See "Effective Java" Item 10. *** (#1 of 1): 2009-06-30 07:34:10 GMT+00:00 weijun.w...@sun.com
