Draft JVMS changes for Nestmates

[Ali Ebrahimi]

Hi all,

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:08 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Dan Smith <daniel.smith at oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I've uploaded a draft of JVMS changes for JEP 181 "Align JVM Checks with
> Java Language Rules for Nested Classes" to:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/private-access.html
>
> Nice.  More comments on that later.
>
> > Some comments below on my thinking in drafting the spec text, and on the
> JEP generally.
> >
> > JEP name
> >
> > I don't know how permanent JEP names are supposed to be, but I'd prefer
> a different name at this point. Something like: "Expanded JVM Access to
> Private Members"—shorter, focused on the feature itself rather than its
> relationship to the Java language. Or maybe "Class Nests for Access to
> Private Members".
>
Or "JVM support for nested classes" OR "[Native] Nested classes in JVM"



> I expect Lookup.defineClass to inject into the nest of the
> Lookup.lookupClass,
> if the lookup has private access.  That's what we call hosting for VMACs,
> almost exactly.  (+1 to Brian's comments to Remi.)
>
> I would prefer "nest host" or "nest host class" or "host class of nest" to
> plain "host class",
> because it will be better if we mention "nest" when we mention the term
> for a nest's host class.
> Downside is pronunciation of "nest-host" sounds like a sneeze.
>
What about "nest root"?



-- 

Best Regards,
Ali Ebrahimi