Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-16 Thread Alan Bateman
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:10:45 GMT, Doug Lea wrote: > A side question: Are there now any situations in which Thread.interrupt can > throw an exception? If not, a few more things in j.u.c and elsewhere could be > simplified someday. It's possible to extend Thread and override interrupt so in theo

Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-15 Thread Doug Lea
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:46:07 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Refactored to remove use of doPrivileged() and use of SecurityManager. >> The DefaultForkJoinWorkerThreadFactory no longer uses the SM to target a >> common thread pool. >> >> A careful review is requested. > > Roger Riggs has updated the

Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-15 Thread Doug Lea
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:46:53 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Deleting it would also mean removing or modifying a bunch of j.u./tck tests. >> Perhaps deprecation is enough. > > ok, for future cleanup Although it is barely conceivable that someone is using it for the sake of capturing the current cla

Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-15 Thread Alan Bateman
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:46:07 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Refactored to remove use of doPrivileged() and use of SecurityManager. >> The DefaultForkJoinWorkerThreadFactory no longer uses the SM to target a >> common thread pool. >> >> A careful review is requested. > > Roger Riggs has updated the

Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-15 Thread Doug Lea
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:56:33 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> I agree on both counts with Alan: The FJP changes are not quite right, and >> in any case should be postponed until after current FJP PR, and then further >> simplified, which would be easiest if I did this. > > @DougLea If you prefer, I c

Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-15 Thread Roger Riggs
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:32:38 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> ok, removing package access check > > I see you've removed it from AtomicIntegerFieldUpdater. There are also > checkPackageAccess usages in AtomicLongFieldUpdater and > AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater. also removed - PR Review

Re: RFR: 8344197: SM cleanup in java.util.concurrent [v3]

2024-11-15 Thread Roger Riggs
> Refactored to remove use of doPrivileged() and use of SecurityManager. > The DefaultForkJoinWorkerThreadFactory no longer uses the SM to target a > common thread pool. > > A careful review is requested. Roger Riggs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since th