On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 14:36:32 GMT, Alexander Zvegintsev <[email protected]> 
wrote:

>> During the [JDK-8344891 Remove uses of sun.misc.ReflectUtil in 
>> java.desktop](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344891) it was discovered 
>> that `beans/finder/MethodFinder.findMethod' incorrectly returned null if a 
>> signature was not in the cache and added it to the cache if it was already 
>> there:
>> 
>> 
>> Method method = CACHE.get(signature);
>> return (method == null) ? method : CACHE.create(signature);
>> 
>> This resulted in a [significant drop in 
>> performance](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350573).
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> Before ReflectUtil was removed, it worked by coincidence:
>> 
>> 
>> Method method = CACHE.get(signature);
>> return (method == null) || isPackageAccessible(method.getDeclaringClass()) ? 
>> method : CACHE.create(signature);
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1. `Cache#get` non-obviously creates a value in Cache, this in turn allowed 
>> us to avoid the NPE in the `(method == null) || 
>> isPackageAccessible(method.getDeclaringClass())` condition
>> 
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/d6c4be672f6348f8ed985416ed90d0447f5d5bb3/src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/beans/util/Cache.java#L120-L126
>> 
>> 2. `isPackageAccessible(method.getDeclaringClass())` was evaluated as true
>> 
>> This is how we previously returned the cached value.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> So the solution is obvious:
>> 
>> 
>> Method method = CACHE.get(signature);
>> return (method != null) ? method : CACHE.create(signature);
>> 
>> 
>> Testing is green.
>
> Alexander Zvegintsev has updated the pull request incrementally with one 
> additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   return CACHE.get(signature);

Looks good to me.

I agree it's better to handle other issues under a separate bug or bugs.

src/java.desktop/share/classes/com/sun/beans/finder/MethodFinder.java line 1:

> 1: /*

Could you update the copyright year?

-------------

Marked as reviewed by aivanov (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23845#pullrequestreview-2654619166
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23845#discussion_r1977805251

Reply via email to