On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:38:11 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> It's a bit smelly to have a public static field of type array. Static >>> analysers are likely to flag this. It would be better to make the field >>> private and have a public static method that returns DIGITS.clone() - then >>> each class that needs it (and if I'm not mistaken there are only two) could >>> encapsulate its own private copy. >> >> I don't think this is a problem. If users can access JDK internal packages, >> they can do many things. For example, through >> `JavaLangAccess::getEnumConstantsShared`, an array shared within JDK can be >> obtained. >> >> Now that we trust the permission control of JPMS, such a requirement seems >> somewhat rigid. > > This array takes some time to prepare. We don't want each class to copy a > large array when we can just prepare it once and use it everywhere within the > JDK implementation. This array is, under no circumstances, leaked to users so > it's safe. What I suggest is to prepare the array only once (in the static block as it is now), but have each class that use it encapsulate is own copy - obtained from clone(). Surely 256 shorts is not so large that we can't have two arrays? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14578#discussion_r1243804755
