I thought we were wrapping this up; I'm not sure how we got back to "do
we even need these at all", but OK. Splitting off a separate (hopefully
short) thread.
These interfaces serve both a dynamic and static role. Statically, they
allow us to constrain inputs, such as:
void runWithLock(IdentityObject lock, Runnable task)
and similar use in generic type bounds.
Dynamically, they allow code to check before doing something partial:
if (x instanceof IdentityObject) { synchronized(x) { ... } }
rather than trying and dealing with IMSE.
Introducing new interfaces that have no methods is clearly source- and
binary compatible, so I am not particularly compelled by "some very
brittle and badly written code might break." So far, no one has
proposed any examples that would make us reconsider that.
As to "value class" vs "primitive class" vs "built in primitive", I see
no reason to add *additional* mechanisms by which to distinguish these
in either the static or dynamic type systems; the salient difference is
identity vs value. (Reflection will almost certainly give us means to
ask questions about how the class was declared, though.)
As to B3: instanceof operates on reference types, so (at least from a
pure spec / model perspective), `x instanceof T` gets answered on value
instances by lifting to the reference type, and answering the question
there. So it would not even be a sensible question to ask "are you a
primitive value vs primitive reference"; subtyping is a "reference
affordance", and questions about subtyping are answered in the reference
domain.
And to B4: the goal is to make B3 and B4 as similar as possible; there
are going to be obvious ways in which we can't do this, but this should
not be relevant to either the static or dynamic type system.
On 12/20/2021 2:05 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
Brian,
the last time we talked about IdentityObject and ValueObject, you said
that you were aware that introducing those interfaces will break some
existing codes,
but you wanted to know if it was a lot of codes or not.
So i do not understand now why you want to mix
IdentityObject/ValueObject with the runtime behavior, it seems risky
and if we need to backout the introduction of those interfaces, it
will more work than it should.
Decoupling the typing part and the runtime behavior seems a better
solution.
Moreover, the split between IdentityObject and ValueObject makes less
sense now that we have 3 kinds of value objects, the identityless
reference (B2), the primitive (B3) and the builtin primitive (B4).
Why do we want these types to be seen in the type system but not by
example the set containing only B3 and B4 ?
Rémi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com>
*To: *"daniel smith" <daniel.sm...@oracle.com>, "Dan Heidinga"
<heidi...@redhat.com>
*Cc: *"John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>,
"valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>
*Sent: *Lundi 20 Décembre 2021 18:54:01
*Subject: *Re: JEP update: Value Objects
I was working on some docs and am not sure if we came to a
conclusion on the rules about who may, may not, or must declare
ValueObject or IdentityObject.
Let me see if I can chart the boundaries of the design space.
I'll start with IdentityObject since it is more constrained.
- Clearly for legacy classes, the VM is going to have to infer
and inject IdentityObject.
- Since IdentityObject is an interface, it is inherited; if my
super implements IO, so am I.
- It seems desirable that a user be *allowed* to name
IdentityObject as a superinterface of an interface or abstract
class, which constrains what subclasses can do. (Alternately we
could spell this "value interface" or "value abstract class"; this
is a separate set of tradeoffs.)
- There is value in having exactly one way to say certain things;
it reduces the space of what has to be specified and tested.
- I believe our goal is to know everything we need to know at
class load time, and not to have to go back and do complex checks
on a supertype when a subclass is loaded.
The choice space seems to be
user { must, may, may not } specify IO on concrete classes
x compiler { must, may, may not } specify IO when ACC_VALUE present
x VM (and reflection) { mops up }
where "mopping up" minimally includes dealing with legacy classfiles.
Asking the user to say "IdentityObject" on each identity class
seems ridiculous, so we can drop that one.
user { may, may not } specify IO on concrete classes
x compiler { must, may, may not } specify IO when ACC_VALUE present
x VM (and reflection) { mops up }
From a user model perspective, it seems arbitrary to say the user
may not explicitly say IO for concrete classes, but may so do for
abstract classes. So the two consistent user choices are either:
- User can say "implements IO" anywhere they like
- User cannot say "implements IO" anywhere, and instead we have
an "identity" modifier which is optional on concrete classes and
acts as a constraint on abstract classes/interfaces.
While having an "identity" modifier is nice from a completeness
perspective, the fact that it is probably erased to "implements
IdentityObject" creates complication for reflection (and another
asymmetry between reflection and javax.lang.model). So it seems
that just letting users say "implements IdentityObject" is
reasonable.
Given that the user has a choice, there is little value in
"compiler may not inject", so the choice for the compiler here is
"must" vs "may" inject. Which is really asking whether we want to
draw the VM line at legacy vs new classfiles, or merely adding IO
as a default when nothing else has been selected. Note that
asking the compiler to inject based on ACC_VALUE is also asking
pretty much everything that touches bytecode to do this too, and
likely to generate more errors from bytecode manglers. The VM is
doing inference either way, what we get to choose here is the axis.
Let's put a pin in IO and come back to VO.
The user is already saying "value", and we're stuck with the
default being "identity". Unless we want to have the user say
"value interface" for a value-only interface (which moves some
complexity into reflection, but is also a consistent model), I
think we're stuck with letting the user specify either IO/VO on an
abstract class / interface, which sort of drags us towards letting
the user say it (redundantly) on concrete classes too.
The compiler and VM will always type-check the consistency of the
value keyword/bit and the implements clause. So the real question
is where the inference/injection happens. And the VM will have to
do injection for at least IO at least for legacy classes.
So the choices for VM infer&inject seem to be:
- Only inject IO for legacy concrete classes, based on classfile
version, otherwise require everything to be explicit;
- Inject IO for concrete classes when ACC_VALUE is not present,
require VO to be explicit;
- Inject IO for concrete classes when ACC_VALUE is not present;
inject VO for concrete classes when ACC_VALUE is present
Is infer&inject measurably more costly than just ordinary
classfile checking? It seems to me that if all things are equal,
the simpler injection rule is preferable (the third), mostly on
the basis of what it asks of humans who write code to manipulate
bytecode, but if there's a real cost to the injection, then having
the compiler help out is reasonable. (But in that case, it
probably makes sense for the compiler to help out in all cases,
not just VO.)
On 12/2/2021 6:11 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
On Dec 2, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Dan Heidinga<heidi...@redhat.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 10:05 AM Dan Smith<daniel.sm...@oracle.com>
wrote:
On Dec 2, 2021, at 7:08 AM, Dan Heidinga<heidi...@redhat.com>
wrote:
When converting back from our internal form to a classfile for
the
JVMTI RetransformClasses agents, I need to either filter the
interface
out if we injected it or not if it was already there. JVMTI's
GetImplementedInterfaces call has a similar issue with being
consistent - and that's really the same issue as reflection.
There's a lot of small places that can easily become
inconsistent -
and therefore a lot of places that need to be checked - to hide
injected interfaces. The easiest solution to that is to avoid
injecting interfaces in cases where javac can do it for us so
the VM
has a consistent view.
I think you may be envisioning extra complexity that isn't
needed here. The plan of record is that we *won't* hide injected interfaces.
+1. I'm 100% on board with this approach. It cleans up a lot of
the
potential corner cases.
Our hope is that the implicit/explicit distinction is
meaningless—that turning implicit into explicit via JVMTI would be a 100%
equivalent change. I don't know JVMTI well, so I'm not sure if there's some
reason to think that wouldn't be acceptable...
JVMTI's "GetImplementedInterfaces" spec will need some adaptation as
it currently states "Return the direct super-interfaces of this
class.
For a class, this function returns the interfaces declared in its
implements clause."
The ClassFileLoadHook (CFLH) runs either with the original bytecodes
as passed to the VM (the first time) or with "morally equivalent"
bytecodes recreated by the VM from its internal classfile formats.
The first time through the process the agent may see a value class
that doesn't have the VO interface directly listed while after a
call
to {retransform,redefine}Classes, the VO interface may be directly
listed. The same issues apply to the IO interface with legacy
classfiles so with some minor spec updates, we can paper over that.
Those are the only two places: GetImplementedInterfaces & CFLH and
related redefine/retransform functions, I can find in the JVMTI spec
that would be affected. Some minor spec updates should be able to
address both to ensure an inconsistency in the observed behaviour is
treated as valid.
Useful details, thanks.
Would it be a problem if the ClassFileLoadHook gives different answers depending
on the timing of the request (derived from original bytecodes vs. JVM-internal data)? If
we need consistent answers, it may be that the "original bytecode" approach
needs to reproduce the JVM's inference logic. If it's okay for the answers to change,
there's less work to do.
To highlight your last point: we *will* need to work this out for
inferred IdentityObject, whether we decide to infer ValueObject or not.
