RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
joe.darcy at oracle.com
Mon Mar 25 17:34:42 UTC 2019
On 3/25/2019 4:50 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> Hiya Joe,
> Response below,
> Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote on 22/03/2019 17:05:33:
> > From: Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com>
> > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung
> > <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
> > Date: 22/03/2019 17:06
> > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails
> > to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
> > Hi Adam,
> > On 3/22/2019 9:14 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> > I was aware that webrevs should be versioned, though I didn't see
> > the value for small change sets like this one.
> > You seem to think there is a value. Can you explain it to me?
> > The time of reviewers is valuable and should not be dissipated in
> > unnecessary attempts to determine what aspects of feedback have been
> > acted upon.
> > -Joe
> Ah, that makes sense.
> If I supplied a diff-of-diffs, would that help?
> To show the difference between two diffs, I mean, so it's clear what I
How about when multiple senior reviewers in OpenJDK ask you to follow
common project conventions on versioned reviews, conventions they follow
themselves (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/), your opening position
is comply with the request (perhaps asking for a rationale or offering
additional alternatives) rather asking for a personal justification or
More information about the core-libs-dev