Type variable information is not always maintained for anonymous classes

[David Holmes]

On 11/12/2018 4:27 pm, Sergei Ustimenko wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for checking it, I'll continue working on it then.
> Just wondering if you have any thoughts on how fix would
> look like.

No. I tried tracking through the Java code to see how this works but the 
path is too long and convoluted :( The information is correct in the 
classfile, but somewhere along the way the nature of the enclosing type 
affects the answer that is produced. See ParameterizedTypeImpl and how 
it gets created by CoreReflectionFactory.

BTW as far as I can see it is not allowed for that method to produce 
null: the type array can be empty, or creating it can throw an 
exception, but otherwise the entries cannot be null.

Cheers,
David

> Regards,
> Sergei
> 
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 02:34, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com 
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Sergey,
> 
>     I've had a look and I don't think this issue is relevant to
>     JDK-8171335.
>     The problem seems to occur when you have a "hidden" enclosing context
>     for the type, and that doesn't change with JDK-8171335.
> 
>     David
> 
>     On 9/12/2018 6:04 am, Sergey wrote:
>      > Hi David,
>      >
>      > Thanks for pointing that out!
>      >
>      >  >We need to see how this example work in that case.
>      >
>      > I guess anyone involved could have straight away two
>      > test cases: one from the bug itself and another from the
>      > observation above.
>      >
>      > In any case. looking forward for that being fixed. I would
>      > also be happy to be able to help with anything if needed.
>      >
>      > Thanks and regards,
>      > Sergei
>      >
>      > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 12:03, David Holmes
>     <david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>
>      > <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com
>     <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Hi Sergey,
>      >
>      >     Just FYI we're in the process of moving away from using anonymous
>      >     classes for lambda's to using an extended Lookup.defineClass
>     API - see:
>      >
>      > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171335
>      >
>      >     this is being done under Project Valhalla, with current work
>     in the
>      >     nestmates branch.
>      >
>      >     We need to see how this example work in that case.
>      >
>      >     Cheers,
>      >     David
>