> On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:11 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mandy,
>
> Just one nit...
>
> On 11/17/2015 11:59 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> Apart from the orphaned paragraph fragment at the end looks good to me, but
>>> that’s just my opinion.
>> I caught that that after I clicked sent :(
>>
>> This is a better version.
>>
>> /**
>> * Gets the {@code Class} object of the caller invoking the method
>> * that calls this {@code getCallerClass} method.
>> *
>> * <p> Reflection frames, {@link java.lang.invoke.MethodHandle} and
>> * hidden frames are filtered regardless of the
>> * {@link Option#SHOW_REFLECT_FRAMES SHOW_REFLECT_FRAMES}
>> * and {@link Option#SHOW_HIDDEN_FRAMES SHOW_HIDDEN_FRAMES} options
>> * if this {@code StackWalker} has been configured.
>
> - if this {@code StackWalker} has been configured.
> + this {@code StackWalker} has been configured with.
Fixed.
>
> Otherwise I think this is fine now.
>
> I was just thinking of getCallerClass() suitability to be an instance method.
> It requires StackWalker instance to be configured with RETAIN_CLASS_REFERENCE
> and ignores SHOW_REFLECT_FRAMES and SHOW_HIDDEN_FRAMES options. Do you
> anticipate other options in the future that could actually affect how
> getCallerClass() operates? If not, then perhaps it could just be a static
> method to simplify use. What do you think?
>
It’s an instance method because the stack walker must have
RETAIN_CLASS_REFERENCE option so that it will do stack-based permission check
only at the getInstance time. If it’s a static method, the getCallerClass will
perform stack-based permission check at each call that we want to avoid.
Mandy
