> On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Doug Simon <doug.si...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> On 30 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Doug Simon <doug.si...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> I’ve extended the webrev with that change - please re-review: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dnsimon/8145337_make/webrev >>> >> >> +1 > > Thanks. Is that a “Reviewed”? >
Sorry. I only noticed now that you added this to UPGRADEABLE_MODULE. Please add it only to PLATFORM_MODULES list instead. Making it an upgradeable module is a separate issue. I suggest you reopen JDK-8171448. Specifically, since upgradeable modules are not tied with java.base, our goal for JDK 9 is to eliminate qualified exports from JDK modules to upgradeable modules, e.g. JDK-8170116, JDK-8166745, JDK-8161549. > I think I should get at least one sign-off from the security team. > Hope Sean will review this one. Please send an updated webrev. > Also, since this is effectively making jdk.vm.compiler an upgradeable module, No it does not. > what’s the implication for it being a hash-checked module? When a module M is recorded in the ModuleHashes attribute of java.base, the runtime will check if module M resolved in the graph matches the one tied with java.base when created at build time; if not, it will fail. If an upgradeable module > It seems like these changes effectively achieve what I was requesting with > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171448. JDK-8145337 is about the security permission. It’s better to separate this review from JDK-8171448. Mandy > > -Doug > >> >>> Strangely, there was no existing declaration of jdk.vm.compiler in >>> Modules.gmk. >>> >> >> Default is to be defined by the application class loader. The build will >> find all modules from the source. There is no need to list all modules. >> >>> BTW, I never answered your question: >>> >>> "How does JVMCI call out to jdk.vm.compiler? does it load classes using >>> Class::forName with the system class loader?” >>> >>> It uses JVMCIServiceLocator[1] which is a mechanism built on the standard >>> ServiceLoader. >> >> Thanks for the pointer. That confirms my understanding that loads the >> service providers using the system class loader. >> >> Mandy >
