Thanks Jörn,

This was first reported to us in May in LOG4J2-245.  Nick sent a message to the 
openjdk list at that time [1] but it seemed to be ignored.  How would you 
propose we convince Oracle?  To be honest, I would much prefer that I be able 
to get a stack trace from a Throwable that has the Class objects in it, instead 
of just the class names.

Ralph



[1] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-comments/2013-May/000014.html

On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Jörn Huxhorn wrote:

> Hi everyone.
> 
> I wanted to inform you about the following Logback issues since their root 
> causes will also impact log4j:
> 
> http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-885
> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/136
> 
> In short:
> sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass
> - changed behavior in Java7u25 since the stack frames have changed. 
> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8016814
> - will throw an UnsupportedOperationException in upcoming Java7u40. 
> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8014925
> - will be removed in Java8 with no replacement. 
> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8020785
> 
> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/136 contains a way to get similar 
> informations but, unfortunately, it is 100x slower than 
> sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass.
> 
> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8014925 contains the following text:
> "JEP-176 proposes to remove sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass(int) that 
> has incompatibility concern since there are existing applications depending 
> on this private API such as Oracle Diagnostic Logging and jidesoft library 
> that breaks Oracle Primavera.
> 
> The jdk part of JEP-176 has been backported to 7u25 but keep 
> sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass(int) as the mitigration plan 
> (JDK-8014745) in 7u25.
> 
> The following describes the transition plan to allow customers to migrate 
> their applications away from this private API:
> 1. Disable sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass(int) in 7u40 and provide a 
> flag to re-enable it
> 2. Determine how this private API is being used and the use cases
> 3. Remove this private API if there is no valid use case or there is a proper 
> replacement for it. Allow at least 2 CPU releases to allow customers to make 
> appropriate change.  So the earliest for the removal is 7u55.  If there are 
> valid use cases but no proper replacement, we may keep this private API in 
> jdk7u for longer."
> I consider the use of this API in logging frameworks a very valid use case, 
> especially since the only replacements available would have severe impact on 
> the performance (other techniques like generating a Stacktrace via Throwable 
> are even slower than the SecurityManager workaround in the pull request) - so 
> we should probably all try to convince Oracle that a proper replacement, 
> ideally in a public API, is needed.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jörn.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 

Reply via email to