RFR: JDK-8136893: Improve early java.lang.invoke infrastructure initialization

Peter Levart peter.levart at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 15:32:08 UTC 2015

Hi Michael,

On 09/25/2015 03:37 PM, Michael Haupt wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> thanks for this changeset. Note I'm not a Reviewer (with a capital R); please read this review in lower-case. ;-)
> One question about MethodType: would you mind doing something about the naming of the newly introduced fromDescriptor() method? Its name does not suggest in any way that it chooses the class loader differently. The name is subtly different from that of fromDescriptorString(), and the signature is identical - it's probably really easy to confuse the two when working at the core libs level. Unfortunately, the only proposal for a name I can make, fromDescriptorStringBootCL(), is clunky. Maybe that's acceptable for a low-level method only visible at package level.

Well, the correct self-describing name would then be 

Perhaps a note in the javadoc that this is the preferred method for 
internal use would be sufficient? We can't make a reference from public 
method to the package-private one in javadoc though.

Another option would be to create new method as public API and 
@Deprecate the old one. There is a convention that null means bootstrap 
loader in other public APIs as well (for example: Class.forName(String 
name, boolean initialize, ClassLoader loader); ) although passing null 
from user code is rarely needed if at all. This is usually just for 
internal use.

Regards, Peter

>> Am 25.09.2015 um 08:46 schrieb Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com>:
>> I have run the tests in java.lang.invoke and only have a problem with 1 test which seems to be related to the test or jtreg itself and happens also without my patch applied:
>> #Test Results (version 2)
>> #Tue Sep 22 09:48:38 CEST 2015
>> ...
>> #section:script_messages
>> ----------messages:(0/0)----------
>> test result: Error. Parse Exception: `@library' must appear before first `@run'
> Yes. The test is also marked as ignored until another issue is fixed, so that can be ignored.
> Other than the above remark/suggestion, this looks fine. I'll defer to an upper-case Reviewer, though.
> Best,
> Michael

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list