Thank you for doing this; it is much clearer now.  Looks good.

On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:19 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote:

> Chris Thalinger suggested removing the new booleans from the changed 
> "getDirectMethod" call sites and instead put the intended usage into the 
> method names, e.g., "getDirectMethodNoSecurityManager".  The result is more 
> clearly correct and maintainable.
> 
> Here is the respin:
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8025112/webrev.01
> 
> — John
> 
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 3:15 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> This change updates the javadoc to reflect previous changes in the behavior 
>> of the security manager, especially with respect to caller sensitivity.
>> 
>> It also adjusts some unit tests.
>> 
>> The key change is to the order of the security manager logic.  The purpose 
>> is to align the "bytecode behavior" of method handles more closely with the 
>> native behavior of the corresponding bytecode instructions.  This means that 
>> "fully trusted" method handles do not incur security checks if they are 
>> equivalent to bytecodes that the user could have written.
>> 
>> The API spec. and security rules have been internally reviewed.  This is a 
>> review of implementation and unit tests.
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8025112/webrev.00
>> 
>> For more background, see my JavaOne presentation:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/pres/201309-IndyUpdate.pdf
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> — John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

Reply via email to