On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:13:10 GMT, Claes Redestad <redes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Chen Liang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Obtain classloader in security manager friendly code path > > Agree with Roger that static imports should be used sparingly (possibly never > with .*). > > If other reviewers are happy with the semantic shift in when/where class > loading can/will happen and which class loader will be used then I won't > object. I'm just not enough of an expert in this area to tell if there might > be unintended side-effects we need to account for. > > The added cost of spinning and calling these clinits means we might be better > off reverting from a startup overhead perspective. JDK-8332457 was already a > regression for some usage patterns. Sorry, I didn't immediately communicate that I decided to follow @cl4es's suggestion and to stay closer to before JDK-8332457. Here is the diff of this patch against the patch immediately before 8332457: https://gist.github.com/liach/7565b2091008f561eb0ada019bc5e517 (as of commit a510b1f4c7e7ba090afacf633be2dc3f5edf98c9) (Also see updated PR description) This should serve better as a comparison for whether the restoration had been faithful. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19615#issuecomment-2163969418
