On 3/2/16 3:21 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 03/02/2016 10:57 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 3/2/16 1:58 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Is there an underlying reason why we can't return the pre-filled
StackTraceElements[] array from the JVM_GetStackTraceElements to begin
with? This will avoid leaking StackTraceElement constructor into
standard library, *and* allows to make StackTraceElement fields final.
Taking stuff back from the standard library is hard, if not impossible,
so we better expose as little as possible.
We measured that it's faster to allocate the StackTraceElement array
in Java and it seems cleaner to the Java guys. It came from similar
code we've been prototyping for StackFrameInfo.
OK, it's not perfectly clean from implementation standpoint, but this
RFE might not be the best opportunity to polish that. At least make
StackTraceElement constructor private (better), or package-private
(acceptable), and then we are good to go.
Well, the RFE is intended to clean this up but I don't think there's
agreement about what the cleanest thing is. If the cleaner API is:
StackTraceElement[] getStackTraceElements();
we should change it once and not twice. I'd like to hear other opinions!
Since StackTraceElement constructor is called by Throwable it has to be
package private but can't be private. I have made it package private.
Also, I think you can drop this line:
836 int depth = getStackTraceDepth();
Oh, right, I can do that. I was hiding the field depth. i don't need
the function either.
Thanks! Thank you for looking at this so quickly.
Coleen
Thanks,
-Aleksey
