myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
Date Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:06:30 GMT
txs 4 the review!

> But the hotfix also rejects numbers like
> 2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so abnormal.
not abnormal but still moderately unlikely.

I agree for a long term scenario.

Basically the default should be to disable this workaround and to make it available via configuration.
Btw, it seems that Oracle finally reacted and will hopefully ship a fixed JVM 1.6 soon (no
help for Java5 users of course).

> The fix should also be done for 1.2, because many
> productive systems using it.

+1

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeil <udo@schnurpfeil.de> wrote:

> From: Udo Schnurpfeil <udo@schnurpfeil.de>
> Subject: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
> To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:59 AM
> Hi,
> 
> I've some comments to the JVM bug for the bad number
> 2.2250738585072012e-00308 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3024)
> 
> The problem occures for values which are "very very low".
> But the hotfix also rejects numbers like
> 2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so abnormal.
> 
> Would it not be better, when the hotfix is configurable (be
> default turned on), so that the admin can switch it off,
> when the JVM bugfix is applied?
> 
> The fix should also be done for 1.2, because many
> productive systems using it.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Udo
> 
> 


      

Mime
View raw message