In my humble opinion, Doug's build was useful only to confirm the root cause of the bug and should not
be used in production as it may cause a memory leak in the native memory (not in the Java heap). That's why encouraging anyone to use his build is a very bad idea. If many developers use his build, discover an abnormal memory footprint and point out Java3D, it will harm our efforts and some people won't be smart enough to make the distinction between his unofficial build and the official build of Java3D 1.6.0-Final.
You want to use his build to work around a bug with Java 1.9 and OS X but then, you don't use another JAR not provided by Doug with a fix for a bug affecting some Linux users. When JOGL 2.3.3 is released, some developers will go on using the already obsolete JARs provided by Doug. If you really want to use Java 1.9 and 1.10 features not
in production only to "explore", why not using another operating system? If it's just for development, what is wrong with that? If you don't absolutely need some Java 1.9 and 1.10 features, you can still ship your software with Java 1.8 and avoid relying on the JRE installed on the system.
It's a JOGL bug for sure. I know where the crash happens in the native code but I haven't found a fix yet and I have no Mac which doesn't help at all for a platform specific bug. What is really frustrating is that some developers who claimed to be willing to contribute content themselves with a dirty workaround with an highly probable nasty side effect and claimed to have fixed the bug whereas it's plain wrong and they could have spent a few days to investigate with me so that we fix the real bug once for all. All this only adds some confusion in the community. To make things clear, if they had provided a clean bug fix, we would have had accepted it.
The help of a developer under OS X is warmly welcome. Keep in mind that we are volunteers. The bug report is here: