On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:31:57 GMT, Joe Darcy <da...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> This is an early review of changes to better model JVM access flags, that is > "modifiers" like public, protected, etc. but explicitly at a VM level. > > Language level modifiers and JVM level access flags are closely related, but > distinct. There are concepts that overlap in the two domains (public, > private, etc.), others that only have a language-level modifier (sealed), and > still others that only have an access flag (synthetic). > > The existing java.lang.reflect.Modifier class is inadequate to model these > subtleties. For example, the bit positions used by access flags on different > kinds of elements overlap (such as "volatile" for fields and "bridge" for > methods. Just having a raw integer does not provide sufficient context to > decode the corresponding language-level string. Methods like > Modifier.methodModifiers() were introduced to cope with this situation. > > With additional modifiers and flags on the horizon with projects like > Valhalla, addressing the existent modeling deficiency now ahead of time is > reasonable before further strain is introduced. > > This PR in its current form is meant to give the overall shape of the API. It > is missing implementations to map from, say, method modifiers to access > flags, taking into account overlaps in bit positions. > > The CSR https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8281660 will be filled in > once the API is further along. src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/AccessFlag.java line 206: > 204: * modifier in the Java programming language} > 205: */ > 206: public boolean sourceModifer() { probably a typo - should be sourceModifier ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7445
