Thanks Paul and Chris, very interesting indeed. regards, Rémi
----- Mail original ----- > De: "Chris Hegarty" <chris.hega...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.san...@oracle.com>, "core-libs-dev" > <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Octobre 2015 16:29:15 > Objet: Re: java.lang.reflect.Method.copyOf > > On 14 Oct 2015, at 15:15, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > > > ----- Mail original ----- > >> De: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.san...@oracle.com> > >> Cc: "core-libs-dev" <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > >> Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Octobre 2015 13:46:38 > >> Objet: Re: java.lang.reflect.Method.copyOf > >> > >> > >>> On 14 Oct 2015, at 12:38, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> Given that j.l.r.Method is mutable, the best way to have performance is > >>> too > >>> encapsulate it in a non mutable class, if possible. > >>> > >>> As far as i know j.l.r.Method was introduced in Java 1.1 as non mutable > >>> and > >>> become mutable with Java 1.2, (yes, someone seriously fucked up !) > >> > >> Some harsh language there :-) I don’t know the full history but i like to > >> think this may have been a frustrating compromise due to some demanding > >> serialization requirements under a tight schedule. > > > > Methods are not serializable. > > No, but was Paul referring to the fact the the custom readObject > and writeObject methods must be private, and somehow > accessible to the Serialization framework ? > > -Chris
