Lookup.defineClass

[Remi Forax]

yes :)

Remi


On March 8, 2017 9:41:13 PM GMT+01:00, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
>On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> The exception if the lookup is PRIVATE should be
>IllegalStateException and not UnuspportedOperationException.
>> then, given that the loaded class will have the same protection
>domain as the lookup class, i do not fully understand why having a
>PRIVATE lookup is a problem.
>
>Since lookups are stateless, so there is never a reason for them to
>throw ISE; thus UOE is better (loose analogy with immutable lists).
>
>We are disallowing PRIVATE in order to reserve it for future use.  If
>you define a class into a private context, the resulting class *should*
>have private access to the lookup-class, but we currently cannot
>express this in the JVM (except by hacks).  Defining a new class with
>private access to a lookup-class is the replacement we are planning for
>the unsafe, undocumented notion of "host class".  But first we need a
>better treatment of what is "private access", which will be provided by
>a future concept of "nestmate" (at the JVM level) which mirrors the
>language-level permissions of nestmates.
>
>Make sense?
>
>— John

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.