On 03/11/2017 08:11, Christoph Dreis wrote:
Hi John,
this has a bigger impact on the overall footprint of Method/Executable objects.
What are your thoughts on this?
The footprint is probably about the same. Small List.of values
do not contain arrays, and may be smaller than arrays with the
same number of elements, since they do not have a length field.
And, indeed, methods typically have a small number of parameters.
Ah, so you would remove the current array field completely and replace it with
the immutable List, right?
In that case I said nothing. I was thinking of a field on top.
The VM creates Method objects and sets the fields, including
parameterTypes, directly so I think removing it would require more work
than it initially looks. If you add a field then it does increase the
footprint a bit. Alternatively, have the method could use a
ImmutableCollection.ListN like implementation that is backed by the
array and doesn't scan it for nulls at create time, this wouldn't be
completely allocation free of course.
In any case, the proposed API does look reasonable although it
deviations from the usual conventions in java.lang.reflect.
-Alan
