[8] Review request for 8004970, 8004971, and 8006817: implement serialization in lambda metafactory and metafactory fix

[Robert Field]

I have pushed these changes.
Awaiting a response from the JSR-292 lead I have, without prejudice, 
removed "public" from MethodHandleInfo and 
MethodHandleInfo.getReferenceKindString.

-Robert


On 02/15/13 20:40, Robert Field wrote:
> On 02/15/13 15:40, Remi Forax wrote:
>> On 02/12/2013 04:23 PM, Robert Field wrote:
>>> Please review the fixes for CRs:
>>>
>>>           http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004970
>>>
>>>           http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004971
>>>
>>>           http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8006817
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>>
>>>           http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rfield/8004970
>>>
>>> Thank,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Robert,
>> few comments,
> Thanks much, Rémi, for the review.
>
>> in MethodHandleInfo:
>>     - getReferenceKindString should not be public, it's a detail of
>> implementation.
> Query to the JSR-292 lead in process.
>
>> in InnerClassLambdaMetaFactory:
>>     - spinInnerClass() should return a simple Class<?>.
> Yep.
>
>>     - generateWriteReplace: there is still a mv.dup() that should be
>> replaced by
>> mv.visitInsn(DUP);
> Yep.
>
>> in AbstractValidatingLambdaMetafactory:
>>      - field markerInterfaces should be declared as Class<?>[]
> Yep
>>        (you can replace all Class by Class<?>)
> Will scan.
>
>> in SerializedLambda:
>>      - I think it should declare a serialUID, so you don't need a ad-hoc
>> versioning.
>>        (to answer to the question line 235)
> Will do.
>
>>      - Also does the constructor
>> SerializedLambda(Class ,MethodHandle,MethodHandle,MethodType,Object[])
>>        still used ?
> Nope.  It's history.
>
>> in TypeConvertingMethodAdapter:
>>      - at the end, load/dup/areturn/getfield should be replaced by their
>> corresponding
>>        code inlined. I don't see a real interest to these too small method.
>>        Only iconst is really complex so worth a dedicated method.
> I find that it makes the code more readable, but there are too few uses
> to justify, and I will defer to you on this score.
>
> Thanks again,
> Robert
>
>> cheers,
>> Rémi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>