RFR: 8000975: (process) Merge UNIXProcess.java.bsd & UNIXProcess.java.linux (& .solaris & .aix)

[roger riggs]

Hi Peter,

Including the test update with the updated changeset is fine.

(I think Alan had some comments on the refactoring and has not yet had a 
chance to comment).

Thanks, Roger

On 4/25/2014 12:18 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
>
> On 04/25/2014 03:32 PM, roger riggs wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it is sufficient that the test enables the security manager, 
>> adding a java.util as the restricted
>> restricted package is not necessary.
>
> I think that too. Is it ok, to fix that as part of UNIXProcess merge 
> fix or should there a separate issue be filed?
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> On 4/25/2014 6:44 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a ping for any Reviewer and also a question for Vladimir.
>>>>
>>>> Hello Vladimir,
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about the classloader issue in the resolving of 
>>>> classes in MemberName.getMethodType() described below?
>>>>
>>> I looked a bit more closely and no longer think the one-liner will 
>>> is sufficient, since it will break the behaviour of 
>>> MethodType.fromMethodDescriptorString:
>>>
>>>     public static MethodType fromMethodDescriptorString(String 
>>> descriptor, ClassLoader loader)
>>>         throws IllegalArgumentException, TypeNotPresentException
>>>
>>>     /**
>>>      * Finds or creates an instance of a method type, given the 
>>> spelling of its bytecode descriptor.
>>>      * Convenience method for {@link #methodType(java.lang.Class, 
>>> java.lang.Class[]) methodType}.
>>>      * Any class or interface name embedded in the descriptor string
>>>      * will be resolved by calling {@link 
>>> ClassLoader#loadClass(java.lang.String)}
>>>      * on the given loader (or if it is null, on the system class 
>>> loader).
>>>
>>>
>>> The observations do suggest there may be some unexpected future 
>>> surprises in store for bootclasspath code in restricted packages 
>>> when a SM is enabled. (The more code we can get off the boot 
>>> classpath the better off we will be.... hopefully Jigsaw FTW!)
>>>
>>> It is be better if the jtreg process test did not monkey around with 
>>> the restricted package list, it's asking for a poke in the eye!
>>>
>>> IMHO we should prioritize fixing the test rather than fixing the 
>>> lambda code to make that test work.
>>>
>>> Paul.
>>
>