Summary: | JreMemoryLeakPreventionListener: initialize two further JRE classes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Tomcat 8 | Reporter: | Luke Woodward <luke.woodward> |
Component: | Catalina | Assignee: | Tomcat Developers Mailing List <dev> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | minor | ||
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | 8.0.x-trunk | ||
Target Milestone: | ---- | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | All |
Description
Luke Woodward
2015-10-07 22:11:12 UTC
The servlet in my previous comment demonstrates a leak with the 'abort' exception in the class com.sun.org.apache.xml.internal.serialize.DOMSerializerImpl. If you replace the lines document.createElement("test"); DOMImplementationLS implementation = (DOMImplementationLS)document.getImplementation(); implementation.createLSSerializer().writeToString(document); with document.normalizeDocument(); then this causes a leak with com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.dom.DOMNormalizer.abort instead. Fixed in trunk, 8.0.x (for 8.0.29) and 7.0.x (for 7.0.66). I raised this issue with Apache Xerces, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1667 (In reply to Luke Woodward from comment #0) > > I have filed a bug report with Oracle to change the behaviour of these two > classes. However, until this gets fixed (if it gets fixed at all), it would > be appreciated if the JreMemoryLeakPreventionListener could be adapted to > handle these two classes. Do you have a bug number for your report? (In reply to Konstantin Kolinko from comment #3) > I raised this issue with Apache Xerces, > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1667 > > > (In reply to Luke Woodward from comment #0) > > > > I have filed a bug report with Oracle to change the behaviour of these two > > classes. However, until this gets fixed (if it gets fixed at all), it would > > be appreciated if the JreMemoryLeakPreventionListener could be adapted to > > handle these two classes. > > Do you have a bug number for your report? No, I don't. I have a Review ID, JI-9025281, but that's all I've heard from Oracle so far. I have a bug number for the report now: JDK-8146961. |