Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of t.p.ellison@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.182.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=YNZeeR+aF9o5sw5if2fl8NYkZm/gbIJSYD8/l5Ki8x+7soIgIfDHSRPiEWv7xc+3lt0xulsv/H4HL6Bpe8vP3bLG4QyUex+AUwcCvPKxYZ2npW/iBDNRn7hbrqGbVpQHUSiQnb8mLA9kbriqmXgd8xxkNVffbXrO8utEg5GEO5M=
Message-ID: <4551B230.8090207@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:32:16 +0000
From: Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony
 classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
References: <e66844de0611022229h66cd6460nd536191f7de97608@mail.gmail.com>
	 <454D2F1C.2020305@pobox.com>
 <454E75CF.4030806@gmail.com>	 <454E7DEF.6080906@pobox.com>
 <454F0807.2000902@gmail.com>	 <454F45F4.7040302@pobox.com>
	 <3b3f27c60611061809j76d81ddclabb2da40a1799f53@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4550F013.3060507@gmail.com>
	 <3b3f27c60611072155w4f0ba3ebu6d451a9778586bd5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45519B18.8080607@gmail.com>
 <6e47b64f0611080112x2f9cd9bbl2fb8594000d19a89@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e47b64f0611080112x2f9cd9bbl2fb8594000d19a89@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stepan Mishura wrote:
> On 11/8/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
>>
>> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> > I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this
>> > snippet.
>> >
>> > +        if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
>> > +            throw new SecurityException("Unsafe");
>> > +        }
>> >
>> > I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
>> > 'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
>> > loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
>> > classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
>>
>> Exactly, we are saying that only 'system' code (i.e. that on the
>> bootclasspath) can get an instance of Unsafe because of the inherent
>> dangers in the Unsafe APIs.  It is then the responsibility of such
>> system code not to release the instance of Unsafe to application code.
> 
> IMO, if this piece of code may cause questions then it makes sense to add
> comments above to the code. Just to avoid similar questions in future.

Sheesh, you'll be asking me to log violations next ;-)

You make a good point.  Done in r472443.

Regards,
Tim

-- 

Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.