Querstion about ForkJoinPool / SecurityManager interoperability

[Doug Lea]

On 12/13/18 2:34 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
> Should I prepare a webrev for this change?

No, I think we are all set (thanks Martin!)
  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215359



> 
> -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
> 
> 
>