RE: RFC: Changing Class.newInstance() to add VM specific feature

2006-04-04 Thread Jeroen Frijters
Mark Wielaard wrote: > And I might misunderstand the semantics of the @Internal access > modifier. As I read your suggestion the VMClass.checkAccess() > method is only invoked when the Constructor of the Class is not > public. It is invoked when either the constructor or the class is not public.

RE: RFC: Changing Class.newInstance() to add VM specific feature

2006-04-04 Thread Mark Wielaard
Hi Jeroen, On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 12:32 +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > This looks OK and not too invasive. But I would like to see as little > > extensions added as possible so let me propose a hack that might > > prevent having to add the hook. Couldn't you override setAc

RE: RFC: Changing Class.newInstance() to add VM specific feature

2006-04-04 Thread Jeroen Frijters
Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 13:09 +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > > I've added a new access modifier to IKVM. By applying the > > @ikvm.lang.Internal annotation to a type or member, you can > > mark it as internal to the library it resides in. Hopefully > > Java will provide somet

Re: RFC: Changing Class.newInstance() to add VM specific feature

2006-04-03 Thread Mark Wielaard
Hi Jeroen, On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 13:09 +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > I've added a new access modifier to IKVM. By applying the > @ikvm.lang.Internal annotation to a type or member, you can mark it as > internal to the library it resides in. Hopefully Java will provide > something similar with JS