[9] RFR: 8173390: Investigate SymbolTable in SAXParser

[Aleks Efimov]

Thank you Joe!


On 16/02/17 03:07, huizhe wang wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> On 2/15/2017 3:56 PM, Aleks Efimov wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestions. New webrev can be found here:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8173390/9/01
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>> You're right that assertNotSame suites better here, i.e. it has nice 
>> output in case of failure. Because of that I removed the 
>> sout.println's from the test too.
>>
>> With Best Regards,
>> Aleksej
>>
>>
>> On 15/02/17 20:16, huizhe wang wrote:
>>> Hi Aleksej,
>>>
>>> I just realized there were other dependencies on the SymbolTable 
>>> instance initialized in the constructor (line 575 in your new code), 
>>> which was probably why you kept the code from 574 through 579 after 
>>> adding new SymbolTable for each parsing process (850 - 854). As a 
>>> result, the SymbolTable will be created twice for the first parsing 
>>> process. One way to solve the issue is to check whether the 
>>> SymbolTable instance is new, or otherwise adding a reset function 
>>> would work as well. In both cases, there will be a bit change to the 
>>> SymbolTable to expose the count. What would you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On 2/15/2017 8:31 AM, Aleks Efimov wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please, help to review the change required by JAXWS-RI code [1]: 
>>>> SAXParser needs to reset internal SymbolTable to enable pooling of 
>>>> parsers in SAAJ-RI code. Latest version of JAXWS-RI code (that is 
>>>> currently under review [2]) doesn't provide a workaround to reset 
>>>> the symbol table (it was done to remove module dependency on Xerces 
>>>> internal classes). So the solution is to reset the SymbolTable 
>>>> during SAXParser reset. The webrev with the changes and simple test 
>>>> that reproduces SAAJ-RI behavior:
>>>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8173390/9/00/
>>>>
>>>> The fix was tested with all JDK/JCK (JAX[P|B|WS] related tests. No 
>>>> failures observed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Aleksej
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173390
>>>> [2] 
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-February/046386.html
>>>>
>>>
>>
>