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 <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > > 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 inner/outer class which took >> advantage of javac-generated >> package private bridges to allow inner/outer class access to private >> members, will now receive an >> IllegalAccessError. This is an intentional tightening of security for >> private member access. > > They won't get IllegalAccessError because their attempt to locate the bridge > method will fail as it no longer exists. I think this is covered by the > existing: > > "Recompilation with a new javac will produce different class files, leading > to different reflection results (e.g., some bridge methods will no longer be > generated). " > > But can be expanded if you think necessary. > > Thanks, > David > >> thanks, >> Karen >>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 1:12 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> The Nestmates CSR request: >>> >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197445 >>> >>> has been prepared by Dan Smith and myself. Before Proposing this CSR >>> request it needs to have Reviewers add themselves to it. >>> >>> (The first reviewer will need to edit the issue to enter their OpenJDK user >>> name in the "Reviewed by" field. Subsequent reviewers can simply click on >>> the "Reviewed by" field in the "People" section and add their user name. >>> >>> The CSR contains links to all the updated specification documents, all of >>> which have been previously sent out for review/comment to the EG (and >>> observers). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> David
