Question ad #AwkwardStrongEncapsulation (Re: Moving the changes in jake to jdk9/dev

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Tue Dec 13 15:56:05 UTC 2016

On 13/12/2016 15:47, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:

> :
> So the current code does not take protected members into account. If protected members (cf. Alex'
> comment)  get added, wouldn't e.g. java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(...)  or
> java.lang.reflect.Field.get(...) be the place to check in the next step, throwing an
> IllegalAccessException if the object is not instantiated from a subclass of the class the protected
> method to invoke or protected Field to get is defined?
If you mean you are asking for setAccessible(true) to succeed but still 
do the access check then it will cause a lot of complications.

So I'm curious, are you calling setAccessible on protected members that 
you do have access or not? If you do have access (you are in the same 
package or a sub-type) then you don't need to call setAccessible. On the 
other hand, if you are looking to use the AccessibleObject to get into a 
different subtype then you are out of luck, the package needs to be open 
to you to do that.


More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list