On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 17:19:50 GMT, David Beaumont <[email protected]> wrote:
> Remove ineffective/unused ImageBufferCache class, and simplify callers /
> remove dead code.
>
> I removed the release methods in the internal classes, but the public
> ModuleReader API method is still there (the override can go away though since
> the default implementation also tests for non-null, so removing the override
> has no risk).
>
> I suspect there are no implementations of ModuleReader that implement release
> semantics after this change, so perhaps we could relax the documentation
> around it? Thoughts welcome.
src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/jimage/BasicImageReader.java line 390:
> 388: }
> 389:
> 390: private static ByteBuffer allocateBuffer(long size) {
The only bit of code from ImageBufferCache that was being used in existing code.
src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/jimage/BasicImageReader.java line 411:
> 409: }
> 410:
> 411: /**
Seemed worth stressing that this is a new buffer allocation (since there's no
"release" option to callers anymore, it's a usage/lifetime change).
src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/jimage/ImageReader.java line 193:
> 191:
> 192: /**
> 193: * Returns the content of a resource node in a newly allocated byte
> buffer.
While the "ByteBuffer" instance is newly allocated, it's almost always a cheap
slice of the memory mapped file. I'm not sure what we want as the best wording
here, since:
1. We want people to know they don't need to worry about "releasing" it, but
also
2. we don't want people to think it's using a newly allocated/copied buffer.
Happy to take suggestion on better wording here and for "getResourceBuffer"
above.
src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/module/SystemModuleFinders.java line
470:
> 468: }
> 469:
> 470: @Override
Can be removed since ModuleReader has a default method with the null check in
it.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29043#discussion_r2662257958
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29043#discussion_r2662260718
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29043#discussion_r2662270609
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29043#discussion_r2662272689
