Alasdair Nottingham
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:32, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote: > >> On 3 June 2011 16:29, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:10 AM, David Jencks wrote: >>> >>>> I'm tired of being in the middle of this. Please discuss this on the owb >>>> dev list or in comments to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-579 >>> >>> :) >>> >>>> >>>> The problem in owb is that although the actual proxy building code has no >>>> problems with the final synthetic methods, there's an excessively naive >>>> check for proxyability that just looks at all declared methods and checks >>>> they aren't final. Based on this example, I think there may be a lot of >>>> existing code with similar errors that works fine in most situations but >>>> will not work with aries. >>> >>> I'm worried about this, also. >>> >>> IIUC, complexity has been added to detect the classes so that we can make >>> these methods 'final' -- not for semantic understanding, but in the hopes >>> of improved JIT behavior. As you note, there is the potential that this >>> will cause incompatibilities/problems with other libraries. >> >> I think Richard gave other reasons as to why these methods should be >> marked final. So it isn't just around performance. > > Richard gave a reason for why someone might want to make a method final. I > don't think he was saying anything specific (one way or another) about > *these* specific methods. > I think he meant to. Although at this point we need him to come back and clarify. > --kevan
