On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:35:48 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.
> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
>   Add mask values to constants' javadoc.

Will take up work on this issue again for JDK 20.


PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7445

Reply via email to