On 04/13/2016 06:02 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:22 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, not about security. Mainly about binary compatibility. For example:
- library A v1 defines an interface I with some methods
- library B creates a dynamic proxy implementing I. It depends on library A and
libraries defining types from method signatures of the interface
- program P uses B and depends on the transitive closure
now comes new version of library A v2 which adds a default method to interface I with
signature that requires additional dependency which is tagged as "optional".
Program P does not need to call this new method on the proxy created by B. Should we
force P to bundle the new dependency although it is not used?
This is the compatibility concern I mentioned if we change the spec to do the
visibility checks on types referenced by the method signatures. My take on
this is that the benefit does not seem to justify the potential
incompatibility. We could file an issue if you think we should look at further.
I’d like to push webrev.01.
Mandy
Yes, of course. This is a different issue.
I think it would be better to fail lazily when some type from a method
signature is not visible.
Regards, Peter
