On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:06:51 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>>> I think "can not be determined" just begs questions. Is this a JDK
>>> limitation, something I'm doing wrong, or something else, ... if you see
>>> what I mean.
>>
>> I think saying 'no caller class on the stack' has the same effect thou
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:48:50 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> The "stack" is exposed in the API with StackWalker, Thread::getStackTrace
>> and other APIs. For CS and restricted methods then I think we are trying to
>> convey that there are no Java frames on the caller stack. Several existing
>> CS A
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:51:49 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> For now, I think the proposed wording in this PR is okay.
Yes, I agree what I'm suggesting is out of scope for this PR.
-
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21067#discussion_r1773524153
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:06:51 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>>> I think "can not be determined" just begs questions. Is this a JDK
>>> limitation, something I'm doing wrong, or something else, ... if you see
>>> what I mean.
>>
>> I think saying 'no caller class on the stack' has the same effect thou
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:45:23 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> It is documented by the CS JEP: https://openjdk.org/jeps/176
>>
>>> It discovers its caller's class by invoking the
>>> sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass method.
>>
>> CS set the precedent here and the terminology.
>
>> I think "can n
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:39:00 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> We use "no caller class" in the CS methods, maybe it could be improved.
>>
>> I think "can not be determined" just begs questions. Is this a JDK
>> limitation, something I'm doing wrong, or something else, ... if you see
>> what I mean.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:42:43 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Is your ask that the javadoc generated text inline this, or the equivalent by
> change the method description of each restricted method?
I admit I had missed the fact there would be some auto-generated text and links
in the API docs for
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:33:27 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> I suggested the current wording here:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/21067#discussion_r1767316787
>>
>> I think 'no caller on the stack' is too vague. AFAICT, the mechanism by
>> which a CS method determines its caller is not doc
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:21:35 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/doc-files/RestrictedMethods.html line
>> 43:
>>
>>> 41: When a restricted method is invoked by >> href="../../../../specs/jni/index.html">JNI code,
>>> 42: or from an >> href="../Linker.html#upcall
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:22:52 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/doc-files/RestrictedMethods.html
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Jor
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:29:34 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> As I wrote in the CSR request for the JEP:
>
> > I think each method that is restricted and/or caller-sensitive should
> > specify what happens when called when there is no caller context. We should
> > use `AccessibleObject::canA
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 21:25:21 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> This PR moves the section on restricted methods from the the javadoc of
>> `java.lang.foreign` package into a standalone static [javadoc
>> page](https://cr.openjdk.org/~mcimadamore/jdk/restricted_javadoc_section/docs/api/java.bas
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:48:50 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> Just be clarify: is it your expectation that, in order for this issue to be
> fixed, we should fix the javadoc of all caller sensitive methods, addressing
> issues that have nothing to do with restricted-ness?
No, just the new res
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 21:25:21 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> This PR moves the section on restricted methods from the the javadoc of
>> `java.lang.foreign` package into a standalone static [javadoc
>> page](https://cr.openjdk.org/~mcimadamore/jdk/restricted_javadoc_section/docs/api/java.bas
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:29:34 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> And I claim that this is outside the scope of this PR.
And I strongly disagree because the only reason I conceded that this
documentation issue need not be addressed by the CSR request for JEP 472 was
because JDK-8338596 was filed
> This PR moves the section on restricted methods from the the javadoc of
> `java.lang.foreign` package into a standalone static [javadoc
> page](https://cr.openjdk.org/~mcimadamore/jdk/restricted_javadoc_section/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/foreign/doc-files/RestrictedMethods.html).
>
> This is
16 matches
Mail list logo
