https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #5)
>
> However, we have had issues reported where objects being retained after web
> application stop until the next GC has been sufficient to cause problems. If
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
Hmm. The profiler was showing the key as strongly reachable. That explains why
it wasn't collected but not why it was strongly reachable. Let me take another
look at the results.
--
You are receiving this m
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
--- Comment #3 from Brett Kail ---
Entries in ThreadLocalMap weakly reference the key, which is the ThreadLocal
subclass that is loaded by the application class loader. Assuming there are no
other retained references to the application class l
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
And for the record while I was 99% sure just from reading the description what
the problem was I did go to the trouble of building a simple test case and
confirming the memory leak with a profiler.
--
You a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59138
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
OS|
