harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varla...@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 10:31:46 GMT
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
>

Mime
View raw message