Agreed on JDK code, but since accessors are also generated for access to outer class' private fields/methods from inner class, wouldn't want people to increase visibility of those fields/methods just to get rid of the accessors in their own code thinking that there are serious problems associated with them.
Anyway, we're in agreement. :) Sent from my phone On May 25, 2012 6:18 PM, "Rémi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > On 05/26/2012 12:09 AM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: > >> >> Yes, methods/constructors as well - I should've pointed that out but only >> answered the field question that was originally asked. >> >> Valid points on metadata and stack pollution, although a bit pedantic for >> real code :). >> >> > given that this code is in java.lang, thus use by millions, > I have no problem to agree that when I review this kind of code, > I switch myself in pedandic-mode. > > Thanks >> >> > cheers, > Rémi > > Sent from my phone >> >> On May 25, 2012 6:03 PM, "Rémi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr <mailto: >> fo...@univ-mlv.fr>> wrote: >> >> On 05/25/2012 11:50 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: >> >> This is specific to private fields in inner classes - >> >> >> and methods and constructors >> >> java allows access to >> them from the outer class, but the JVM doesn't so javac >> generates synthetic >> accessor methods for them. Don't think it's a problem for JIT >> compiler >> though as it should inline them. >> >> >> yes, there are unconditionally inlined so performance is not the >> problem. >> The issues are more that the compiler generates unnecessary code, >> unnecessary class metadata, stack pollution and stacktrace >> pollution too. >> >> Rémi >> >> >> Sent from my phone >> On May 25, 2012 5:23 PM, "Ulf Zibis"<ulf.zi...@gmx.de >> <mailto:ulf.zi...@gmx.de>> wrote: >> >> Am 25.05.2012 22 <tel:25.05.2012%2022>:30, schrieb Jeff Hain: >> >> Hello. >> >> In HashMap, the class Holder should not declare the >> static final fields >> >> 'private' because the compiler will generate an >> accessor in that case, >> >> I wasn't aware that making fields private could have a >> downside >> (other than making them non-visible). >> >> Could you, or anyone, please give (a link to) more >> info about this? >> >> I'm interested too. >> >> -Ulf >> >> >> >> >
