On Dec 27, 2006, at 6:00 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
Paulex Yang wrote:
Hi, all
I found that IBM VME's kernel class implementation don't fully
support
generics related reflection, more specifically, the methods below
always
return null: (Oli? would you like to confirm?)
j.l.r.Constructor.getGenericParameterTypes()
j.l.r.Constructor.getGenericExceptionTypes()
j.l.r.Field.getGenericType()
j.l.r.Method.getGenericReturnType()
j.l.r.Method.getGenericParameterTypes()
j.l.r.Method.getGenericExceptionTypes()
java.lang.Class.GetGenericInterfaces()
java.lang.Class.GetGenericSuperclass()
So I looked at DRLVM's j.l.r.Constructor implementation, seems most
codes related generics reflection are VM neutral, such as classes in
o.a.h.l.r.parser, except several small native methods locate in
o.a.h.v.VMGenericsAndAnnotations to access class flags, I haven't
looked
into other classes but I won't be surprised if they aren't in similar
case. If so, it makes sense to me to extract the VM independent part
into class library codes as utilities, so that IBM VME(and other
Harmony
compatible VM) can also benefit from them, one obvious drawback
may be
some new VMI methods needed to access the VM implementation details.
Because lack of enough knowledge on either IBM VME or DRLVM
implementation, I'm not sure if it is a good idea. So any comments
from
DRL gurus and others?
I know that you were asking for DRL gurus, but...
this makes sense to me, looking at the logic in the DRLVM-specific
types
it appears that we can share that non-trivial logic across VM's and
reduce the VM-specific parts to retrieving the raw data and calling
those helpers.
The logic place for such shared types would be in
o.a.h.luni.internal.reflect. Of course, it does not preclude VMs
dealing with the API entirely themselves and not delegating to the
helpers if they so choose.
+1
Regards,
Tim
