Record attribute binary format

Vicente Romero vicente.romero at
Mon Oct 14 12:29:16 UTC 2019

On 10/12/19 7:32 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> On 12/10/2019 22:17, forax at wrote:
>> BTW, Should java.lang.Class have a method 
>> getCanonicalRecordConstructor() ?
> This would be helpful, as the serialization use case already shows us 
> that people would want to infer the signature of the canonical 
> descriptor from the accessors return types. Which is doable, but a bit 
> tedious to do. I was also worried, if we drop the 'isVarargs' from the 
> component about how a client might reconstruct vararg-ness of the 
> constructor. In the reflective lookup that's not too important, after 
> all the runtime type of the components is the same, regardless of 
> varargs) - but for source reflection this might be more important to 
> reconstruct correctly - so I think it would be nice to have an 
> official 'link' between the record/class and its canonical 
> constructor, both in core reflection, and source reflection.

we should add all these issues to our next meeting agenda tomorrow

> Maurizio
>> BTW2, if in the future we need some access flags on record 
>> components, we can still add a new attribute like MethodParameters on 
>> the Record attribute, so the current binary format is Ok.

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list