On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:16:38 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Are the changes necessary for this part? >> >> @seanjmullan no, they are just performance refinement. >> >> If you really that wanna 100% sync , >> >> I can use the old 1.8 api to migrate that part, and make a mirror pr to that >> part of https://github.com/apache/santuario-xml-security-java >> >> Is this solution acceptable then? > >> > Are the changes necessary for this part? >> >> @seanjmullan no, they are just performance refinement. >> >> If you really that wanna 100% sync , >> >> I can use the old 1.8 api to migrate that part, and make a mirror pr to that >> part of https://github.com/apache/santuario-xml-security-java >> >> Is this solution acceptable then? > > Yes, that would be preferred. Thanks! > I'd like to see a confirmation from @seanjmullan to make sure the issues with > Santuario are resolved satisfactorily. Other than that I think it's pretty > well covered. I've already run these changes through our internal test system > and they look fine. I'll do a final recheck and let you know. I am fine with this being integrated. @XenoAmess already [submitted a PR to the Santuario Project](https://github.com/apache/santuario-xml-security-java/pull/64) using the existing `HashMap` constructor which I have approved. So the code will be in sync the next time we upgrade the JDK to a newer version of Santuario. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7928
