[rfc][icedtea-web] Rewrite of MethodOverloadResolver

[Jiri Vanek]

On 01/09/2013 09:05 PM, Adam Domurad wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 03:43 PM, Adam Domurad wrote:
>> Thought I'd do a simple patch to turn the test code embedded in MethodOverloadResolver into a a
>> proper unit test ... unfortunately, my small look into this class lead me to find many subtle bugs
>> -- and coincidentally decide to do it properly. Lots of corner cases covered, and it could
>> probably use unit tests even still, but its a major improvement and I'm a bit tired of looking at
>> it so I'm posting it.
>>
>> Some broken things I uncovered included improper overloading order, method/argument situations
>> that would error-out if they ever occurred (but were valid), and the fact that the JSObject used
>> throughout the class was actually a dummy value used at the bottom of the class. The code was also
>> made a lot cleaner in the process, in the interest of 'doing it right' while fixing it.
>> ChangeLog:
>> 2012-12-14  Adam Domurad  <adomurad at redhat.com>
>>
>>     Rewrite of MethodOverloadResolver with detailed unittests.
>>     * plugin/icedteanp/java/sun/applet/MethodOverloadResolver.java:
>>     Rewritten to reduce duplicated code, fix very subtle bugs in
>>     never-tested codepaths, obey spec properly. Introduced new helper types
>>     where Object[] arrays with special-meaning positions were passed
>>     around.
>>     * plugin/icedteanp/java/sun/applet/PluginAppletSecurityContext.java:
>>     Updated to work with newly introduced types / refactored overload
>>     resolver.
>>     * tests/netx/unit/sun/applet/MethodOverloadResolverTest.java: In-depth
>>     unit tests of hairy details of method overloading in JS<->Java.
>>
>>
> Ping?
> -Adam

Although I really like this patch as it is making MethodOverloadResolver much more readable and 
better, there is no significant *visible* improvement (according to Jana's tests). Also I was unable 
to review it properly - as it  was de facto replacement.

Unless you+jana will find some improvement in (at least) liveconect test or similar, then I must 
revoke this patch.

If no "proof" will be found by you and jana, then I would like to get this into head by small 
(reviewable) steps accompanied by unit/reproducer tests.

Sorry for troubles
   J.