Hi Mandy,
On 8/03/2018 6:12 AM, mandy chung wrote:
Hi David,
I'm reviewing the core reflection and j.l.invoke spec change.
Thanks for looking at this.
I think Class::getNestHost and Class::getNestMembers should do a security
permission check as performed in other method e.g. getEnclosingCla
- Mail original -
> De: "daniel smith"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Mars 2018 22:52:32
> Objet: Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction
>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>
>>> This might not pan out, and if so we can
- Mail original -
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "daniel smith" , "Daniel Heidinga"
> , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Mars 2018 19:28:00
> Objet: Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction
>> Daniel (S), Brian,
>> i think your view on this subjec
Actually - you are correct - the generated-trampoline name won’t exist - so
you have already covered this more accurately.
thanks,
Karen
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 4:53 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> On 8/03/2018 5:47 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>> David,
>> Thank you so much for doing this.
Hi Karen,
On 8/03/2018 5:47 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
David,
Thank you so much for doing this. Very clear description.
I marked this as “Reviewed by"
Thanks.
A minor review question:
1. Compatibility risk:
Would it make sense to add one more note:
Classes in the same package as an existing
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
>> This might not pan out, and if so we can drop the error check and return to
>> where we were.
>> But it seems promising, and we don't want to get stuck in 11 making
>> compatibility promises
>> about the interpretation of things like 'bootstr
Hi David,
I'm reviewing the core reflection and j.l.invoke spec change.
I think Class::getNestHost and Class::getNestMembers should do a security
permission check as performed in other method e.g. getEnclosingClass.
* @throws SecurityException
* If a security manager, s, is pr
David,
Thank you so much for doing this. Very clear description.
I marked this as “Reviewed by"
A minor review question:
1. Compatibility risk:
Would it make sense to add one more note:
Classes in the same package as an existing inner/outer class which took
advantage of javac-generated
package
Daniel (S), Brian,
i think your view on this subject is biased by the fact that you built that
library.
I can understand why you'd think that, but allow me to correct. My view
is biased by the fact that I built the _first_ such library, and it was
pretty annoying, and I want to save future
Daniel (S), Brian,
i think your view on this subject is biased by the fact that you built that
library.
While the name and the type of a condy are not strictly necessary because if
you have one bsm by constant, you know the type, you still need the lookup
argument, apart if you are building a l
10 matches
Mail list logo
