On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:02:40 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this change that adds a new dynamic proxies implementation as >> hidden classes. >> >> Summary: >> 1. Adds new implementation which can be `-Djdk.reflect.useHiddenProxy=true` >> for early adoption. >> 2. ClassLoader.defineClass0 takes a ClassLoader instance but discards it in >> native code; I updated native code to reuse that ClassLoader for Proxy >> support. >> 3. ProxyGenerator changes mainly involve using Class data to pass Method >> list (accessed in a single condy) and removal of obsolete setup code >> generation. >> >> Comment: Since #8278, Proxy has been converted to ClassFile API, and >> infrastructure has changed; now, the migration to hidden classes is much >> cleaner and has less impact, such as preserving ProtectionDomain and dynamic >> module without "anchor classes", and avoiding java.lang.invoke package. > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The pull request now contains 13 commits: > > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/hidden-proxy > - Flip flags, hidden is enabled only by choice > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/hidden-proxy > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/hidden-proxy > > # Conflicts: > # src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/ProxyGenerator.java > - Missing changes to commit > - Condense legacy and modern impl > - Clean up > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/hidden-proxy > - Cleanup... > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > feature/hidden-proxy > > # Conflicts: > # src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/ProxyGenerator.java > - ... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/7276a1be...2cc88f2b Updated to merge latest master. It seems the hidden class implementation passes existing serialization tests. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19356#issuecomment-2407902076
