RFR(M): 8199940: Print more information about class loaders in IllegalAccessErrors.

[Lois Foltan]

On 6/26/2018 10:34 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I updated the change to use Lois' latest change.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8199940-exMsg-IllegalAccess/04/
> I added the 'private' modifier in the method message, the other changes
> to the method message were done by Lois already.
> This is now exactly what was proposed before.
>
> Please review.  It would be great if I could push that before
> feature complete on Thursday.
Hi Goetz,
Looks great!  Thank you for your patience working through the error 
message wording proposal.  Tiny nit:

- runtime/exceptionMsgs/IllegalAccessError/IAE78_B.java
   line #29 "classs" should be "class"

I don't need to see another webrev.
Thanks,
Lois

>
> Best regards,
>    Goetz.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mandy chung [mailto:mandy.chung at oracle.com]
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2018 00:41
>> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; 'Lois Foltan'
>> <lois.foltan at oracle.com>
>> Cc: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: RFR(M): 8199940: Print more information about class loaders in
>> IllegalAccessErrors.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/18 2:11 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Let's keep it as is, I'll check on JDK-8169559 and propose to
>>> simplify it then ... but I assume Lois will implement something like
>>> that anyways.
>>>
>>> Is that ok?
>> Ok with me (I misunderstood that you wanted to simplify it in your patch).
>>
>>> (`($C1 and $C2 are in loader $L)` I don't think we should mention
>>> both classes again.)
>> Without the class name, it does not say what is in L.
>>
>> I reviewed
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8199940-exMsg-IllegalAccess/03/
>> but not the test.  Lois and Harold will review it.
>>
>> Mandy