java.lang.constant.ClassDesc and TypeDescriptor for hidden class??

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Thu Apr 2 20:35:12 UTC 2020



On 4/2/20 1:18 PM, forax at univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *De: *"mandy chung" <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
>     *À: *"Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>, "Brian Goetz"
>     <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
>     *Cc: *"John Rose" <john.r.rose at oracle.com>, "valhalla-dev"
>     <valhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>     *Envoyé: *Jeudi 2 Avril 2020 21:58:29
>     *Objet: *Re: java.lang.constant.ClassDesc and TypeDescriptor for
>     hidden class??
>
>
>
>     On 4/2/20 12:03 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
>         ----- Mail original -----
>
>             De: "Brian Goetz"<brian.goetz at oracle.com>
>             À: "mandy chung"<mandy.chung at oracle.com>, "John Rose"<john.r.rose at oracle.com>
>             Cc: "valhalla-dev"<valhalla-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>             Envoyé: Jeudi 2 Avril 2020 20:34:31
>             Objet: Re: java.lang.constant.ClassDesc and TypeDescriptor for hidden class??
>
>             Mandy reminded me that descriptorString() is specified to return a JLS
>             4.2.3 field descriptor, and so (c) would violate that spec.  I think
>             this tilts the table away from (c), even though this string is arguably
>             useful (though not clear to whom.)
>
>             While the spec for TypeDescriptor doesn't explicitly say "for use in a
>             classfile" or "for reflective instantiation", its hard to imagine use
>             cases that don't terminate in one of these situations, at which point,
>             we're going to fail.  So it is not clear whether we do anyone favors by
>             having Class::descriptorString() return something "helpful" that is not
>             really helpful.
>
>             Given the choice between (a) and (b), well, both are going to result in
>             user surprises (though, the spec for TD::descriptorString doesn't
>             prohibit returning null.)  Taken together, I think (b) is less awful
>             than (a), so I revise my answer to (b).
>
>         (a) and (b) are incompatible changes.
>         returning null is equivalent of throwing a NPE because at least the existing callers will not expect null, so i think (a) is better because you can have a proper error message.
>         And the javadoc can explain that testing myClass.isHidden() upfront is the right way to avoid the exception.
>
>
>     What exception would you propose to throw for this "not a valid
>     type descriptor runtime entity"?    If it throws an exception, it
>     may be better to define a new exception type in
>     `java.lang.constant` - would it seem a little overkill? The
>     clients would need to be updated to handle hidden classes if they
>     expect Class::descriptorType invoked on any class.  I consider a
>     helpful error message is nice while returning null indicates this
>     class does not have a valid field descriptor. 
>
>
> Hidden class is not something we want every developers to know, only 
> the ones that write frameworks. So it's a secondary feature, that's 
> why you ask if creating a new runtime exception worth the cost or not ?

Exactly and explain the reason I propose (b) to return null than 
throwing an exception.

Mandy
> I have no strong feeling, i'm fine with IllegalStateException but 
> having an exception in java.lang.constant is fine too.
>




More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list