Peter Williams wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Was this fix checked to be sure it covers all field types referenced
> in 2.4 correctly?
It looks right. But that really isn't a valid answer for this
question. Since there isn't a devtest that caught this problem earlier,
and I did not see a devtest added with this code change... the question
of is this right is still fairly "open".
Without some kind of test, this issue could get reintroduced, too...
I am surprised this wasn't caught by the CTS....
>
> -Peter
>
> Hong Zhang wrote:
>
>> Hi, Peter
>> This problem is now fixed as part of the fix for issue 1121.
>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1121
>>
>> The fix will be available from tomorrow's nightly build.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Hong
>>