Claes tidied things up to produce a workable patch:
> Here is the updated webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8040837/0/webrev/
>
> I will push it to jdk9/dev/jdk on Friday before COB for Claes unless I hear
> objections.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
On Apr 18 2014, at 09:27 , Michael McMahon <michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> wrote:
> I think it would be an improvement to combine these doPrivileged() blocks
> as suggested, though your patch needs work Bernd. For instance,
> the multi-catch doesn't work. Also the PrivilegedAction<> type is wrong.
>
> If someone wants to update it, then we can use that. Otherwise, we'll
> go with the original suggested change.
>
> Thanks
> Michael
>
> On 17/04/14 21:28, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> Am Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:50:23 +0200
>> schrieb Bernd Eckenfels <bernd-2...@eckenfels.net>:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would propose to use Integer.valueOf(tmp) instead, but looking at
>>> the context I think it is even better to skip this and the following
>>> null check with Integer.parseInt().
>> This is even shorter and it reduces the privileged actions invocations:
>>
>> Integer tmp = java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged (
>> new PrivilegedAction<String>() {
>> public String run() {
>> try {
>> String tmpString = Security.getProperty(cachePolicyProp);
>> if (tmpString != null) return Integer.valueOf(tmpString);
>> } catch (NumberFormatException | IllegalArgumentException
>> ignored) { }
>>
>> try {
>> return Integer.getInteger(cachePolicyPropFallback);
>> } catch (NumberFormatException | IllegalArgumentException
>> ignored) { }
>>
>> return null;
>> }
>> });
>>
>> if (tmp != null) {
>> cachePolicy = tmp.intValue();
>> if (cachePolicy < 0) {
>> cachePolicy = FOREVER;
>> }
>> propertySet = true;
>> } else {
>> /* No properties defined for positive caching. If there is no
>> * security manager then use the default positive cache value. */
>> if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
>> cachePolicy = DEFAULT_POSITIVE;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> NB: this will
>
