RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
Adam Farley8
adam.farley at uk.ibm.com
Mon Mar 25 18:36:08 UTC 2019
Addendum: URL for new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~afarley/8216558.1/webrev/
Adam Farley8/UK/IBM wrote on 25/03/2019 18:04:05:
> From: Adam Farley8/UK/IBM
> To: Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com>
> Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung
> <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
> Date: 25/03/2019 18:04
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails
> to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> I've read your reply, and I apologise for any offence my inquiry has
caused.
>
> My intent was only to ask for information.
>
> I would now like to refocus on the bug at hand.
>
> Do you, or Mandy, have a position in regards to the response I sent
> a few days ago?
>
>
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-March/059191.html
>
> Also, I have read the guide (finally), and I see the tests should
> have a bug tag. I'll add that now, in a versioned webrev.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
> IBM Runtimes
>
> Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote on 25/03/2019 17:34:42:
>
> > From: Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com>
> > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung
> > <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
> > Date: 25/03/2019 17:35
> > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails
> > to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
> >
> > On 3/25/2019 4:50 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > Hiya Joe,
> >
> > Response below,
> >
> > Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote on 22/03/2019 17:05:33:
> >
> > > From: Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com>
> > > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>, Mandy Chung
> > > <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
> > > Date: 22/03/2019 17:06
> > > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8216558: Lookup.unreflectSetter(Field) fails
> > > to throw IllegalAccessException for final fields
> > >
> > > Hi Adam,
> > > On 3/22/2019 9:14 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > > Hi Joe,
> > >
> > > I was aware that webrevs should be versioned, though I didn't see
> > > the value for small change sets like this one.
> > >
> > > You seem to think there is a value. Can you explain it to me?
> >
> > >
> > > The time of reviewers is valuable and should not be dissipated in
> > > unnecessary attempts to determine what aspects of feedback have been
> > > acted upon.
> > > -Joe
> >
> > Ah, that makes sense.
> >
> > If I supplied a diff-of-diffs, would that help?
> >
> > To show the difference between two diffs, I mean, so it's clear
> whatI changed.
> >
> > How about when multiple senior reviewers in OpenJDK ask you to
> > follow common project conventions on versioned reviews, conventions
> > they follow themselves (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/), your
> > opening position is comply with the request (perhaps asking for a
> > rationale or offering additional alternatives) rather asking for a
> > personal justification or exception?
> > -Joe
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list