Hi Paul,

On 22/05/2018 2:15 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
Hi David,

On May 21, 2018, at 5:05 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:

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.


Perhaps i am obsessing a little too much, i thought there might be a slight 
window of opportunity while other related reviews are progressing :-) but i 
don’t want to block things for 11.

My concern, placing my library/API designer hat on, is the specification is 
saying something very clear and yet on the other hand it's as if we are saying 
“oh you can ignore that, the specification does not matter, it will never 
happen in practice”. It feels like the JVM world is intruding too much into the 
reflection world (see below).


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.


I don’t dispute there may be duplicate information in class file bytes, nor am 
i suggesting the class file bytes for nestmates be changed, nor that the 
verifier get involved. However, the reflection API is not a direct reflection 
of those class file bytes. It provides a runtime view of a class and often 
performs its own computation from and validation of information in the class 
file bytes.

Not all information in the class file bytes is directly accessible via the 
reflection API, such as BootstrapMethodsAttribute, or 
MethodParametersAttribute, the latter of which AFAICT is exposed via the 
Reflection API indirectly via a Parameter[] array returned by 
Method.getParameters().

I am less sure about RuntimeVisibleAnnotations but there is quite a lot of 
processing performed by the Java reflection code before annotations reach the 
hands of the developer, and a quick look at some code shows the use of maps 
keyed by annotation class to the annotation value. And see for example here in 
AnnotationParser:

     if (AnnotationType.getInstance(klass).retention() == RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME 
&&
         result.put(klass, a) != null) {
             throw new AnnotationFormatError(
                 "Duplicate annotation for class: "+klass+": " + a);

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/95ba3a1dc2b2/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/AnnotationParser.java#l110

Okay I acknowledge your point here about VM view versus Reflection view. It would be easier if we were returning the members in a duplicate-detecting data structure rather than an array (though placing the host at zeroth element complicates that). The sheer effort involved in detecting and removing duplicates from an array is what made me shy away from pushing for that. You can see the EG discussion from here:

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-spec-experts/2017-December/000464.html

If you really think this is worth re-opening it would probably be expedient to discuss with John so you both end up on the same page, then let me know the outcome.

Though I'll also note that we can strengthen the current implementation at any time and just update the @implNote.

Thanks,
David
-----



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.)


Yes, agreed, caching can be possible future work.

Paul,

Reply via email to