Nest host validation vs NestHost attribute performed by Lookup::defineHiddenClass

[Peter Levart]

On 10/2/19 1:07 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/19 3:24 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 2/10/2019 7:55 am, Peter Levart wrote:
>>> On 10/1/19 8:04 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/1/19 3:11 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
>>>>> Imagine a situation where a hidden class HC1 is defined in it's 
>>>>> own nest. Then this HC1 is used as a LC in a Lookup to define 
>>>>> another hidden class HC2 to be part of this nest (HC1, HC2). What 
>>>>> should HC2.getNestHost() return? If it returns HC1, then HC2 is 
>>>>> effectively preventing HC1 to be unloaded.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no restriction what a hidden class can call, for example, 
>>>> using lambda or method reference, which may call a framework 
>>>> library to generate HC2.  HC1 and HC2 should be unloaded when both 
>>>> classes become unreachable.   Do I miss the issue you tried to 
>>>> point out?
>>>
>>> I was trying to point out that a hidden class added to a nest that 
>>> has a hidden nest host class will retain the nest host class (in 
>>> order to be able to return it from getNestHost() method). Which may 
>>> not be desirable.
>>
>> I see this as no different to any other case where a strong reference 
>> is kept to something that is only weakly referenced elsewhere. The 
>> "weak" aspect only relates to the relationship between the defining 
>> classloader and the class, it doesn't imply that every use of the 
>> class must itself be weak.
>>
>
> Right.
>
> If a weak class HC1 is being strongly reachable by another class HC2, 
> the drawback is that it keeps HC1's lifetime longer until HC2 is 
> unreachable.
>
> Mandy

Ok, I see now that it is best for getNestMates() to be static only. In 
case of a nest with a normal named NH, this method would only return the 
statically defined mates without any hidden classes added dynamically. 
So why would this method need to return any members for hidden only 
nest? This would mean that it behaves differently depending on whether 
there is a normal named class in the nest or not.

For getNestHost() then I agree that holding the nest host reachable as 
long as all members are reachable is not a real problem. As John says, a 
minimal class could be used for NH to act just as a handle to be 
returned from getNestHost() and nothing else...

Regards, Peter