Request for approval for bug #8031488

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Sat Jan 11 16:41:11 UTC 2014

On 10/01/2014 16:28, Iaroslav Savytskyi wrote:
> :
> There are 3 possibilities:
> 1) Because it was my own initiative to fix this potential synchronization bug and nobody didn’t report it, we can approve my fix and leave this 2 classes without synchronized getters. And fix it in MR.
> 2) Fix it as you propose. But later we will definitely need to change it again to volatile for performance reasons.
> 3) Leave classes with volatile as they are now. And only add SUID to TypeConstraintException class.
I know this is a blocker for JDK 8 and I don't want to waste time 
debating the options. So I think #1 or #2 are okay (with a slight prefer 
for #2 because it doesn't require bring back the original bug in 

#3 is of course the best but from the previous mails then I thought this 
wasn't an option.

So you choose and one of us will help you get this in.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list