Feedback on proposal for #ReflectiveAccessToNonExportedTypes

[Alan Bateman]

On 11/07/2016 10:41, Andrew Dinn wrote:

> :
> I don't think there is any confusion here other that that you have
> failed to note an important part of what is being asked for and, in
> consequence, recognise why that request was made. Jason, Paul and I all
> said we would like to see some sort of privileged version of what you
> are proposing.
Alex has engaged with Jason on his comments, I'm sure Mark will comment too.


> 'exports dynamic' is not a privileged relaxation.
Correct and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

>
> That option may well be the status quo as of JDK8 but with JDK9 it is
> the status quo in a changed world. Firstly, this so-called status quo
> significantly undermines the point and utility of Jigsaw since
> effectively it negates it's presence at runtime for large parts of the
> code base. So, you get compile-time checking but you don't get any
> runtime enforcement.
It means that public types in these packages are accessible to other 
components. Non-public types/members would not be accessible of course, 
at least not without suppressing access checks (= setAccessible when 
using core reflection).

-Alan