Hi Paul,
On 22/05/2018 2:39 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On May 20, 2018, at 11:32 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
3984 public Class<?>[] getNestMembers() {
I still think not removing dups is a mistake as it could be a source of subtle
bugs. But i doubt at this point i can persuade you or others to change it :-)
Unlikely. :) Again well-formed programs just won't encounter this and it would
penalize all well-formed programs.
Although those well-formed programs may need to check for dups themselves
because they don’t want to rely in implementation details (and they are not
aware of the probability of implementations deviating).
I'm quite concerned about your level of concern with "dups". This just
shouldn't be an issue. While the spec allows for dups javac will never
produce them - and file a bug on it if it ever does! Similarly for other
compilers - there is no reason to generate duplicate entries.
Looking through the JVMS and the defined classfile attributes it seems
to me that the annotations[] of RuntimeVisibleAnnotations (et al)
doesn't preclude duplicates either. And the bootstrap_methods[] of the
BootstrapMethodsAttribute. Also look at the parameters[] of the
MethodParametersAttribute**. Do you agree?
** Which even has an explicit note this is not something a JVM
implementation has to check.
Here’s a thought: did you consider caching the nest members in the
ReflectionData class? that may be worth doing regardless of dups.
No that was not considered. Caching, as you know, is a space-time trade
off and we have no data to use to determine whether caching would be of
any benefit here. To me that would be a future RFE regardless. (And I
don't expect these introspective nest methods to be used much in any case.)
Thanks,
David
-----
Paul.
