Need help with change

[David Holmes]

On 22/05/2013 9:47 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 7:34 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> I don't understand. AFAICS the JVMTI spec just says you have to be
>> able to get to these things from the Class object. So if the fields
>> are in Class then we just need to access them - no need for an upcall.
>
> We're moving the signers field out of Class also, with another change.
> It is unnecessary and wastes space.   The java code in the jdk can just
> call pd.getCertificates() instead and we can remove all knowledge of
> signers in the jvm.

So what happens to Class.getSigners() ?

> Or we can implement the jvmti version of getSigners in the jvm to make a
> Java upcall.    Or we could add the layout of protection domain to
> javaClasses and see if certificates is a field and get that.  Or
> something to avoid the upcall.   This could be tricky.   I wish we could
> change the jvmti spec or not support callbacks for the signers object.
> It's really odd.   I don't know what this is for.

AFAIK JVMTI is just exposing what would be available at the Java level. 
If we are redefining the notion of "signers" then it may well be 
appropriate to update the JVM/TI spec to reflect that change.

David
-----

> Coleen