> On 11 Apr 2016, at 13:02, Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 2016-04-11 12:03, Paul Sandoz wrote: >>> On 8 Apr 2016, at 15:37, Michael Haupt <michael.ha...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> note this is a lower-case review. Thumbs up. >>> >>> I like how the test lucidly documents the access rules, and would applaud >>> an extended test that additionally covers module boundaries. > > +1 >
I’ll follow up later with that, https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153963 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153963> >>> >>> Just as a suggestion, how about using the fact that enum values are >>> technically instances of subclasses of the enum and getting rid of the >>> switches in FieldLookup.lookup/isAccessibleField by replacing the two with >>> overridden methods in each of the enum elements? Switching over "this" just >>> calls for polymorphism, and the default cases are dead code. Admittedly, >>> it's a matter of style. :-) >>> >> Done, updated in place: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8152645-VH-access-control/webrev/ >> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8152645-VH-access-control/webrev/> > > Looks good. > Thanks, Paul.
