Sunbug 6934356: Vector.writeObject() synchronization risks serialization deadlock

Mike Duigou mike.duigou at
Mon Jan 10 22:07:17 UTC 2011

Hi Neil;

Thanks for the updates. I have posted both this webrev and the Hashtable counterpart on

Hashtable :

Vector :

I am confused on one point about the license. The copyright line mentions IBM but then the rest of the initial license comment refers to Oracle. To me, from the file text alone, it is not be clear why Oracle would be legally entitled to offer a license to the code. I defer to more lawyerly types to determine what's correct here.

The changes and testfiles otherwise look OK to me and I can push them as soon as the license question is resolved.



On Jan 10 2011, at 07:48 , Neil Richards wrote:

> On 10 January 2011 11:56, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at> wrote:
>> Looks okay to me. One minor comment is that you might want to update
>> writeObject's description where it currently reads "It just calls the
>> default writeObject method". A minor nit in the tests is that the date range
>> should be "2010, 2011," rather than "2010-2011".
>> -Alan.
> Apologies for seeming to approach the solution asymptotically.
> Please find attached a further webrev zip file with modification to
> the writeObject's javadoc and testcases copyright date range.
> Please let me know if you find anything further.
> Cheers,
> Neil
> --
> Unless stated above:
> IBM email: neil_richards at
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
> <>

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list