RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
adam.farley at uk.ibm.com
Mon Mar 25 11:48:45 UTC 2019
Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote on 22/03/2019 17:06:38:
> From: Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com>
> To: Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com>, Adam Farley8
> <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Date: 22/03/2019 17:07
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails
> to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
> On 3/22/2019 9:56 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> On 3/22/19 8:40 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Please update distinct versions of a webrev (e.g. distinguished with
> .1, .2 directory names) rather than overwriting a single one. This
> make it easier for those coming to the review thread later to see
> the evolution of the changes over time.
> I had requested new test in the webrev during my review. That really
> helps me, a reviewer, to keep track what has been changed easily.
> It will also give you an idea how many revisions this review
> involves when you started for a code review (as opposed to asking
> for "how to fix this issue").
> I was asked to read the regression test that is attached to JBS issue
> I was asked to review a diff (cut-n-paste) on the mail when I
> requested a webrev to include a regression test. 
> On Jan 31, 2019 , I includeed a link to the OpenJDK developer
> guide and I was hoping you read the guideline and be familiar with
> it which should help you contributing to the OpenJDK.
> I was disappointed to get your conclusion:
> Historically, the bigger the change I propose, the more months it takes
> the OpenJDK community to approve.
> OpenJDK is a community one participates in, not a service one sits
> in judgement over.
No judgement was implied in my original comment. I was attempting to
explain why I'd favoured a smaller code change over a large code change,
and you're telling me I was unclear.
Code changes can take a while to gain community approval, and it makes
sense to me that I would notice that and attempt to make my code
changes as small and simple as possible, to avoid delays, and make
things easier for everyone.
It seems that didn't get across this time, so I apologise.
I will try to be more explicit in the future.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the core-libs-dev