Re: Lookup.defineClass

2017-04-03 Thread Alan Bateman
On 03/04/2017 15:15, Russell Gold wrote: Upon further testing, this turns out to be less capable than the “Unsafe” version - in particular, I cannot create a test stub in a closed package. The problem is that unit tests often need to do a number of things like this that make no sense in a

Re: Lookup.defineClass

2017-03-14 Thread Remi Forax
yes :) Remi On March 8, 2017 9:41:13 PM GMT+01:00, John Rose wrote: >On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Remi Forax wrote: >> >> The exception if the lookup is PRIVATE should be >IllegalStateException and not UnuspportedOperationException. >> then, given

Re: Lookup.defineClass

2017-03-14 Thread Alan Bateman
On 14/03/2017 17:37, Russell Gold wrote: Hi Alan, I am trying this in SimpleStub, and it seems to work for my current test cases if I do this: MethodHandles.Lookup in = MethodHandles.privateLookupIn(baseClass, MethodHandles.lookup() ).dropLookupMode( MethodHandles.Lookup.PRIVATE ); return

Re: Lookup.defineClass

2017-03-14 Thread Russell Gold
nd in the same runtime package > as the Lookup's lookup class. > > An initial implementation of Lookup.defineClass is in the current Jigsaw EA > builds [1], the javadoc is also online [2]. We are currently looking for help > in trying out this method to see how it might be used

Re: Lookup.defineClass

2017-03-08 Thread Remi Forax
Hi Alan, i've already updated the only code i had that was using ClassLoader.defineClass after a Method.setAccessible() to use Unsafe.defineClass (no way to remove it, i need to be able to inject code a la Mockito) so Lookup.defineClass is a safe replacement of Unsafe.defineClass , i suppose