Hi Kevin,
On 05/02/2017 02:21 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
This review is being cross-posted to both openjfx-dev and jigsaw-dev.
Please review the proposed fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177566/webrev.00/complete-webrev/
Details of the fix as well as notes to reviewers are in the bug report
[1] (e.g., I've also generated separate webrevs for the fix itself,
the doc changes, and the test changes).
-- Kevin
[1]
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566?focusedCommentId=14074243&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14074243
I think it is very unusual to handle unqualified exports as something
special, different from qualified exports. I know what the reasoning is:
if a package is exported unconditionally (to everyone) then it is part
of public API and so the trampoline may access members of that package
on behalf of anyone. But such reasoning is just a consequence of the
lack of a finer-grained (per-module) access support in JavaFX. I know it
is too much to ask for JDK 9, but could JavaFX in say JDK 10, given
current API, somehow determine on whose behalf it is making the
trampoline access? If it could, then the trampoline could allow
qualified exports to be effective too.
Regards, Peter
