Review request for JDK-8139931: Introduce Operation objects in Dynalink instead of string encoding

[Attila Szegedi]

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan <sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> * StandardOperation.java is missing copyright.
> 
> * NamedOperation.java is missing copyright.
> 
> * CompositeOperation.java is missing copyright.

Indeed; added copyrights.

> * Can CompositeOperation be final?

Well, it’s hard to see why would someone want to subclass it, but I also don’t really see why someone shouldn’t be able to do it, to maybe add some language-specific information and still have it be recognized externally as CompositeOperation. (Same reasoning goes for NamedOperation, I guess). Do you have an rationale for making it final?

> 
> * Unrelated ArrayData change? Unused method?

Yes. I was following a change in the parameter type from String to Operation and stumbled upon it.

> * NashornCallSiteDescriptor may have explanation as to why 18 bits are sufficient for "program point" [now that flag bits are used for encoding operation enums as well]

I agree, I added an explanation.

> 
> That's all I could find...
> 
> +1
> 
> -Sundar
> 
> On 10/20/2015 1:41 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>> Please review JDK-8139931 "Introduce Operation objects in Dynalink instead of string encoding" at <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8139931/webrev.jdk9> for <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139931>
>> 
>> This is admittedly a big one. It is also the last in the pipeline of the internal Dynalink cleanups, so we’ve reached the end of that!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>   Attila.
>