Querstion about ForkJoinPool / SecurityManager interoperability

[Patrick Reinhart]

Should I prepare a webrev for this change?

-Patrick

Am 13.12.18 um 15:15 schrieb Doug Lea:
> On 12/13/18 8:44 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
>> This special case could have been handled also by the
>> InnocuousForkJoinWorkerThread
>> could in my opinion be relaxed to accept null or the system classloader
>> to be set
>> using setContextClassLoader() 
> Thanks. We should/will do this. The unconditional throw was clearly too
> strong; innocuous calls can be allowed. This doesn't address the general
> issues of dynamic security manager installation, but at least removes an
> obstacle for people trying to cope.
>
> I created CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215359
>
> -Doug