harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Fursov" <mike.fur...@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 12:55:43 GMT
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


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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message