Re: [core-libs] RFR (L): 8010319: Implementation of JEP 181: Nest-Based Access Control

Hi Peter, On 21/05/2018 4:12 PM, Peter Levart wrote: On 05/21/2018 07:57 AM, David Holmes wrote: Do we really need to spell out the case for primitives and arrays? If so would it suffice to add the following: "A class or interface that is not explicitly a member of a nest *(such as primiti

Re: [core-libs] RFR (L): 8010319: Implementation of JEP 181: Nest-Based Access Control

Hi Paul, Thanks for looking at this. On 17/05/2018 4:00 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote: HI, Nice thorough work on this, surprisingly tricky in some areas esp. MHs. Yeah the fundamental access control part was simple. The invokeinterface semantics for private method invocations via MH got a bit trick

Re: [core-libs] RFR (L): 8010319: Implementation of JEP 181: Nest-Based Access Control

On 05/21/2018 07:57 AM, David Holmes wrote: Do we really need to spell out the case for primitives and arrays? If so would it suffice to add the following: "A class or interface that is not explicitly a member of a nest *(such as primitive or array classes)*, is a member of the nest consisti

Re: [core-libs] RFR (L): 8010319: Implementation of JEP 181: Nest-Based Access Control

Hi Alan, Many thanks for looking at this! Let me start by saying that generally any spec changes (even non-normative) have to pass a high bar given the number of levels of review the spec, ie API, has already had. That isn't to say that no changes will be considered but I'm very wary of makin

Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk integration 2018-05

Hi John, On 20/05/2018 8:54 AM, John Rose wrote: On May 19, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: I like thinking of ArrayList as just an optimized HashMap, Lua-style, and HashMap.replaceAll also does not increment modCount, supporting our "structural modification" position. The thing tha

Re: RFR: Small cleanups in java.lang.ref

> On May 18, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schatzl > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 18:31 -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote: >>> I've been confused by NULL vs null for years. >>> >>> 8203327: Small cleanups in java.lang.ref >>> ht

Re: RFR: Small cleanups in java.lang.ref

> On May 18, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > In the cleanup category also is:JDK-8132984 > incorrect type for > Reference.discovered > > Is that within the scope of 8203028? I’d like to keep them separate. 8203028 is VM

Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk integration 2018-05

On 05/20/18 00:54, John Rose wrote: The phrase “incorrect results” in List cannot be carte blanche to add checks where we are afraid the programmer might have made an error even if we cannot prove one; that would be just officious mind-reading. +1 I'm all for adding checks that prevent progra