Code Review Request: 8016698: Cleanup overrides warning in sun/tools/ClassDeclaration.java
chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Tue Jun 18 08:57:35 UTC 2013
For the purposes of this issue, I think your changes to hashCode are in
line with the equals implementation. Trivially, you could also remove
the '(obj != null) && ' from equals ;-) Otherwise, looks fine to me.
On 06/18/2013 12:01 AM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
> I spent some more time reviewing this, I believe the equals()
> implementation is correct. Given one string, we get a unique
> Identifier. The Identifier has the associated Type cached - so given an
> Identifier, we get a unique Type too. One usage of the
> ClassDeclaration#equals() method is in ClassDefinition#subClassOf(),
> which walks up the inheritance path of the concerned
> class to check if any of those are equal to the argument
> ClassDeclaration (and hence have equal Types)..
> - Kurchi
> On 6/17/2013 10:45 AM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
>> On 6/14/2013 11:56 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> On 14/06/2013 23:59, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
>>>> This is to elimnate the overrides warning from
>>>> ClassDeclaration.java. This class is used by rmi, but sun/tools/java
>>>> sun/tools/javac also heavily uses it, let me know if anyone else
>>>> should also be reviewing it.
>>>> Bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8016698 [To appear]
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~khazra/8016698/webrev.00/
>>> This looks okay for the purposes of squashing the warning but the
>>> existing equals method does look suspect. It might not matter for the
>>> rmic usage but as the equals doesn't take account of the the
>>> "definition" then it looks to me that it consider very different
>>> ClassDeclarations as equals. It would be good to understand how it is
>>> used to see whether we have an issue here or not.
>> Thanks for the review.
>> If you analyse "definition", it is not constant and changes as the
>> state of the class changes (whether binary class is loaded, whether it
>> has been compiled and so on) - and so does the status field. The type
>> field looks like the only good candidate to use in the equals method -
>> so the equals() looks correct to me.
>> Now the question is whether there is any need of overriding
>> Object.equals() at all, that is, whether each ClassDeclaration object
>> be treated as a unique one - I am looking around in the source code to
>> check that.
>> - Kurchi
More information about the core-libs-dev