On 01/09/2013 21:04, Nick Williams wrote:
:
So David says he thinks he can find someone at RedHat to sponsor this, assuming
it looks good.
Nick
I see the patch is accessible now.
From a quick scan then it appears that you've decided to ignore the
security concerns so I don't think anyone can (or should) sponsor this
patch until there is further discussion on the API and the security
implications.
To help things then one suggestion is start small and just focus on the
no-arg getCallerClass and the method to return the array of stack traces
(be it an extended StackTraceElement or the new StackTraceFrame that you
are proposing). The getCallerClass will need a permission check, as will
the method to get the extended stack trace. I think it would also be
useful to lay out the points on extending StackTraceEment vs.
introducing a few StackTraceFrame type.
-Alan.
