RFR: 8324646: Avoid Class.forName in SecureRandom constructor [v2]

[Oli Gillespie]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 20:09:12 GMT, Roger Riggs <rriggs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I don't disagree in principle but it was like this before the revert, and is still like this in 17.
>
> Is volatile really needed? And there is some performance penalty and in practice the value will be the same even if recomputed.

Same thinking as above - this is how it was before, and how it is in 17. I'd rather not diverge, unless the reason is strong.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17559#discussion_r1466266515