Fwd: Fwd: Re: A facility for getting the current method's name

[Sebastian Sickelmann]

Hi Behrang Seaadzadeh,

maybe you should move with this request to coin-dev at openjdk.java.net.

See http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2011-October/003355.html
and the last considered small change to the java language.

-- Sebastian
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	Re: A facility for getting the current method's name
Datum: 	Sat, 01 Oct 2011 07:35:51 +0200
Von: 	Sebastian Sickelmann <sebastian.sickelmann at gmx.de>
An: 	jdk8-dev at openjdk.java.net



Am 01.10.2011 03:49, schrieb Behrang Saeedzadeh:
>  Hi Krystal,
>
>  On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Krystal Mok<rednaxelafx at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>  Hi Behrang,
>>  This reminds me of how people were looking for a "current class literal",
>>  something like this:
>>  public class Foo {
>>     public static void main(String[] args) {
>>       // don't want to hard code "Foo.class" here
>>       String name = Foo.class.getName();
>>     }
>>  }
>>  and now that JDK7 is out, they've got a new toy that gives them exactly
>>  that:
>>  java.lang.invoke.MethodHandles.lookup().lookupClass()
>  This is very similar to what I am looking for. What I need is
>  something like this:
>
>  java.lang.invoke.MethodHandles.lookup().lookupMethod();
Is there a reason why you want it to be an operation/evaluation at runtime?
Because i don't see this at runtime. Am i missing something?
>>  It's not mean't to be fast when used like this, though.
>>  The same with what you're looking for, but you've already got backtrace
>>  which gives you the correct semantics, just not fast enough, right?
>  Yes, AFAICT, it should be possible to get the current method's name
>  without having to construct the (expensive) stack trace. I personally
>  avoid suchlike operations ATM only because they're expensive.
>
>  By the way, now that we're into it, it would be great if we have a
>  standardized byte code enhancement library (e.g. ASM). I know, I know!
>  I am asking for too much! :D
>
>  Cheers,
>  Behrang
>
>>  On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Behrang Saeedzadeh<behrangsa at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>  Sean, Mario,
>>>
>>>  I am looking for something like JavaScript's arguments.callee.name or
>>>  Ruby's __method__. AFAIK, accessing the current method's name is a
>>>  very cheap operation in JS and Ruby while creating a stack trace is a
>>>  moderately expensive operation in Java.
>>  They don't seem to be expensive in JavaScript or Ruby because those
>>  languages didn't have fast implementations. Once they do (as the current JS
>>  engines and JRuby/Rubinius), this kind of reflective operations will show
>>  their cost.
>>  Regards,
>>  Kris Mok