Proposed API for JEP 259: Stack-Walking API

[Andrew Dinn]

On 04/11/15 02:59, Mandy Chung wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 2:08 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I considered Optional<Class<?>>. I believe it is rare to have a
>>> JNI attached thread calling StackWalker::getCallerClass from
>>> native.  Most common cases will find a caller class.   Returning
>>> an Optional will force most common uses to handle the case if
>>> it’s absent.  It’s a tradeoff that I think it’s better to return
>>> Thread.class for the JNI attached thread calling getCallerClass
>>> in native which would rarely happen.
>> 
>> I'll say it: I don't think the world will fall apart if it just
>> returns null when there's no caller.  Some might even consider that
>> to be intuitive.
> 
> I think there is no real issue to return Thread.class either, right?

I don't understand this comment.

Several posters in this very thread have raised the issue that this
fails to disambiguate cases where there is a caller frame belonging to
Thread from those where there is no caller frame.

Have you not recognised this ambiguity or are you discounting it?

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------