On 22/01/2019 4:48 am, Robert Marcano wrote:
:

So the question now is, why signed jars could affect the memory usage of an application (we aren't doing JAR verification on our custom launcher, yet), just by being on the java.class.path? IIRC the initial application classpath JARs were never verified previously (by the java launcher alone, without JNLP around).

Note: Tested with JARs signed with a self signed certificate and with one signed with a private CA. At most, signing the JARs could slow down the start up if it is now expected to these being verified by the java launcher (is it true?) but not higher memory usage and no reductions after a GC cycle but constants heap size increases.
Signed JARs can be expensive to verify, esp. on first usage as the verification is likely to result in early loading of a lot of security classes and infrastructure. If you can narrow down the apparently memory leak to a small test case with analysis to suggest it's a JDK bug then it would be good to get a bug submitted.

-Alan

Reply via email to