Hi Christoph,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com
> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> thanks for your review!
>
> > com/sun/tools/jdi/InvokableTypeImpl.java:
> >
> > import com.sun.jdi.VMCannotBeModifiedException; ?Why do we need to
> > import this type, we do not seem to use it?
>
> This is needed for the documentation, see line 97, the throws
> documentation.
>
> > ObjectReferenceImpl:
> >
> > the removed code: Looks like part of the checks are missing since a long
> time.
> > The remains could be understood as a check that the class for the method
> to
> > be invoked exists in the debuggee. But then, there are no guarantees
> > anyway that inbetween firing the invoke command to the debuggee and the
> > debuggee processing the invoke command that class may not be unloaded,
> > so we may just rely on the jdwp invoke command failing for that case.
> So, ok
> > to remove it IMHO.
>
> I thought so, too.
>
> > SDE.java:
> >
> > @SuppressWarnings("unused") ? which member is unused?
>
> It's about member "njplsEnd". Still it looks cleaner not to remove it but
> to suppress the warning.
>
> > "SocketTransportService.java: pull out SocketConnection to an own file
> > SocketConnection.java" - why?
>
> In the codebase that I was merging the package with, the class
> SocketConnection needed to be declared public for some reason.
> This is only allowed if the code lives in a file which is named like the
> class. And since I think it's generally not wrong to have classes
> in their own file and I find other package private classes of
> com.sun.tools.jdi their own class files, too, I thought it's a win-win to
> pull it out. :)
> It will ease future merging.
>
> > com/sun/tools/jdi/VMModifiers.java:
> >
> > Not touched by your change, but weird: In VMModifiers, some of the
> > constants share numerical values:
> >
> > 28 public interface VMModifiers {
> > ...
> > 35 int VOLATILE = 0x00000040; /* can cache in registers */
> > 36 int BRIDGE = 0x00000040; /* Bridge method generated by
> compiler
> > */
> >
> > 37 int TRANSIENT = 0x00000080; /* not persistant */
> > 38 int VARARGS = 0x00000080; /* Method accepts var. args*/
> > ...
> >
> > So, VOLATILE == BRIDGE and TRANSIENT == VARARGS? This seems wrong, no?
>
> This really looks weird, I agree. But it's out of scope for me to dig
> further... :)
>
> As I addressed all the points you mentioned, I will consider the change
> reviewed by you.
>
> Best regards
> Christoph
>
>
Thanks for the answers, and I am fine with the change, no need for a new
webrev.
Kind Regards, Thomas
