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

[Sundararajan Athijegannathan]

+1 with changes.

On final modifier: nothing specific comes to mind. We can leave it 
non-final...

-Sundar

On 10/20/2015 3:09 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>> 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.