Alan, could you please commit this patch for me? We've tested it locally
and all of the jdk_other tests pass with this change on jdk9.
93d92
< * Once installed, the builder cannot be replaced.
101d99
< * @exception IllegalStateException If a factory has already been
installed.
109,111d106
< if (object_factory_builder != null)
< throw new IllegalStateException("ObjectFactoryBuilder already
set");
<
739,740c734
< * the security manager to do so. Once installed, the builder cannot
< * be replaced.
---
> * the security manager to do so.
747d740
< * @exception IllegalStateException If a builder was previous
installed.
754,757d746
< if (initctx_factory_builder != null)
< throw new IllegalStateException(
< "InitialContextFactoryBuilder already set");
<
Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote on 05/10/2017 07:32:47 AM:
> From: Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>
> To: Andrew Guibert <aguib...@us.ibm.com>, core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Date: 05/10/2017 07:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal:
> javax.naming.spi.NamingManager.clearInitialContextFactoryBuilder()
>
> On 08/05/2017 23:27, Andrew Guibert wrote:
>
> > :
> >
> > I am not sure why the "no resetting" restriction is on the
NamingManager
> > API in the first place. Is anyone aware why the API has this
restriction?
> > In any case, the solution outlined above seems rather messy (as it only
> > solves the problem by mitigating a classloader leak), so I would like
to
> > propose the following addition to the NamingManager API:
> >
> >
> I checked with one of the engineers that worked on the JNDI API a long
> time ago and there doesn't seem to be any significant reason to disallow
> it be changed.
>
> Looking at it now then it might be simpler to change
> setInitialContextFactoryBuilder to allow a new builder to be set rather
> than introducing a clearXXX method. I can't imagine anything but tests
> relying on IllegalStateException to be thrown if already set. A variant
> to explore is setting the builder to a placeholder InitialContextFactory
> rather than null.
>
> So is your plan to proposal a patch and tests for this?
>
> -Alan
>
