Hi Mandy, Looks good.
cheers /Joel On 2013-12-14, Mandy Chung wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for the review. This code path is critical in this core > reflection implementation and I want to resolve this bug with a low > risk fix in an update release and thus the proposed fix. Thanks > for the experiment with MethodHandles and finding out the > pecularity. As a side note, I really look forward to the > reflective method call being reimplemented with method handles > (great to see your prototype). > > I have incorporated Alan's and your comment. Updated webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk7u/webrevs/8021368/webrev.01/ > > Mandy > > On 12/14/2013 6:09 AM, Peter Levart wrote: > > > >Hi Mandy, > > > >I tried the following: > > > > > >public class Test { > > > > static class A {} > > > > static class B {} > > > > static class X { > > public void x() { } > > } > > > > static class Y extends X { > > public A a(B b) { return null; } > > public B b(A a) { return null; } > > public void x() { } > > } > > > > public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { > > MethodHandles.Lookup lookup = MethodHandles.lookup(); > > MethodHandle mh = lookup.findVirtual(Y.class, "x", > >MethodType.methodType(void.class, new Class[0])); > > MethodHandleInfo mhi = lookup.revealDirect(mh); > > System.out.println(mhi.getDeclaringClass() == Y.class); > > } > >} > > > > > >The above code does not trigger loading of classes A or B. But > >unfortunately it prints true even if I comment-out the declaration > >of method Y.x(). I don't know if this is a bug though. I should > >ask on the mlvm-dev list... > > > >Anyway, your approach seems more appropriate as it doesn't depend > >on method handles and their peculiarities... > > > >Some nits: > > > >2241 * Finds the checkMemberAccess method of the given > >SecurityManager*instance*. > > > > > >...I think it should read "...of the given SecurityManager*class*." instead, > >since the method parameter is of type Class. > > > > > >2210 private static class SecurityManagerHelper { > >2211 private final SecurityManager smgr; > >2212 private final boolean overrideCheckMemberAccess; > > > > > >...the fields could be declared package-private so that no synthetic access > >methods are generated... > > > >Regards, Peter > > >
