harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Egor Pasko <egor.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][jit][performance] Suggestion: Let's write some small and hot native(kernel) methods on vmmagics.
Date Fri, 18 May 2007 17:03:28 GMT
On the 0x2DA day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Fursov wrote:
> Alexey,
> any public method can delegate execution to a private one. The private
> methods are not under specs. Using this pattern we will not expose any
> implementation specific annotation to end users

OK then, thank you for clarification

> On 5/18/07, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/5/18, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com>:
> > > On 18 May 2007 00:36:06 -0700, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the 0x2D9 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Fursov wrote:
> > > > > On 5/18/07, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as annotations are not a part of specifications, and
magic
> > > > > > impls are general enough to not depend on runtime configuration
> > > > > > (particular VM components etc), this approach looks neat.
> > > > > > Another issue with using arbitrary magics is potential risk
of
> > > > > > security breaches; we need to think how to control & restrict
> > origin
> > > > > > of magic codes - like allowing only predefined bootstrap packages
> > a la
> > > > > > "org.apache.harmony.security.fortress" or introducing &
checking
> > > > > > dedicated security permissions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's good to restrict magics  to be used only  in bootstrap classes.
> > In
> > > > this
> > > > > case I see no security problems. (?)
> > > >
> > > > Does The Standard allow extra unspecified annotations in bootstrap
> > > > classes?
> > >
> > >
> > > I know that it does not say anything about privates. With help of
> > @Inline
> > > pragma it's enough.
> >
> > Egor probably meant annotations on those public methods to be replaced
> > by magics - then this is the same question as I meant above saying "As
> > long as annotations are not a part of specifications".
> > The short answer is: only TCK knows. More detailed answer is:
> > 1) Annotations are listed in javadocs and probably should be checked by
> > the JCK;
> > 2) Extra annotations do not affect compatibility in any way and should
> > be allowable from common POV.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mikhail Fursov
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mikhail Fursov

-- 
Egor Pasko


Mime
View raw message