On 6/24/2010 9:35 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 21 June 2010 22:29, Daniel D. Daugherty <[email protected]> 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 base.
At this point, I've heard from Eamonn McManus and Tony Printezis on
the second round so I have my required two reviewers, but...
It's a pity these reviews weren't posted on the list; this thread
reads a little oddly on the outside, with big chunks missing...
Thanks for keeping it on the public lists where possible.
Eamonn's comment that this should have done with ReferenceQueues was
posted on the list on 2010.06.11. Jeremy offered Google's solution to
the problem on 2010.06.11 and Martin posted a link to it on the same
day.
The only thing missing from the list was me asking Eamonn if the new
version was what he meant. And me asking Tony P. if the new version
matched his paper. I wouldn't call those questions or their answers
"big chunks missing".
Dan
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 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://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javase/finalization/
This version also has limits on the number of dead Loggers that are
cleaned up per call; thanks to Alan Bateman for politely pushing me in
that direction.
The webrev is again relative to OpenJDK7, but the bug is escalated so
the fix will be backported to the JDK6-Update train. So again, I'll
need a minimum of two code reviewers.
Here is the URL for the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6942989-webrev/1/
Thanks, in advance, for any reviews.
Dan
