On 08/02/2012 09:35, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Interesting fix that making use of the class loading priorities.
The 'Initialization on Demand Holder idiom' is used in other places in
the platform. I think it suits well here, if creating a SecureRandom at
this point is expensive. Especially if it may not be needed.
Not directly related but "// should not happen". Should this throw an
Error? I've seen this in other places too, certainly can be handled
separately and not a blocker for this particular fix.
-Chris.
Xuelei
On 2/8/2012 5:18 PM, Vincent Ryan wrote:
Please review the following change:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vinnie/7142339/webrev.00/
for http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7142339
It employs lazy initialization to avoid the overhead of creating a secure
random number generator in code that never uses signature timestamping.
Thanks.
