Hi Remi, > do you have checked that the your patch doesn't load a bunch of supplementary > classes at start-up ? > because JarFile is used at start-up, it triggers the load of Runtime.Version > and Runtime.Version has a dependency on a dozen of classes in java.util.regex.
Is it still true, in JDK 9, that JarFile is loaded at start-up? Using a simple Hello World program, I started it with the option -verbose:class and did not see either JarFile or Version loaded. Just to verify, I added a print statement to a static initializer in both JarFile and Version, and again did not see either class loaded. I also tried the tests with a jar file on the class path and did see both classes loaded. > > cheers, > Rémi > > ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Steve Drach" <steve.dr...@oracle.com> >> À: "Joseph D. Darcy" <joe.da...@oracle.com> >> Cc: "Core-Libs-Dev" <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> >> Envoyé: Jeudi 16 Juin 2016 23:44:14 >> Objet: [SPAM-RENATER]Re: RFR: 8150680 JarFile.Release enum needs >> reconsideration with respect to it's values >> >> This webrev uses methods instead of fields to return the base and runtime >> values used internally by JarFile. I’ve also optimized it a bit. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.02/ >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.02/> >> >>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Joseph D. Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Steve, >>> >>> In JarFile, please use methods not fields to return the new information. >>> The information in question is not constant across versions. Using methods >>> instead of fields avoid over-committing on a particular implementation, >>> etc. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -Joe >>> >>> On 6/15/2016 3:49 PM, Steve Drach wrote: >>>> I’ve updated the webrev to address the issue of the constructor accepting >>>> values like Version.parse(“7.1”) >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.01/ >>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.01/> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Steve Drach <steve.dr...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Please review the following changeset: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.00/index.html >>>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.00/index.html> >>>>>>> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8150680 >>>>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8150680> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The issue calls for reconsidering the JarFile.Release enum. A comment >>>>>>> in the bug report suggests replacing JarFile.Release with >>>>>>> Runtime.Version, and that’s what I did. Specifically I removed the >>>>>>> enum, changed the constructor to accept a Runtime.Version object >>>>>>> instead of a JarFile.Release object, updated all places in the JDK >>>>>>> that invoked the constructor and updated all tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Moving to Runtime.Version seems right but doesn't the javadoc for the >>>>>> constructor need to be updated to make it clear how it behavior when >>>>>> invoking with something like Version.parse("7.1") ? If I read the code >>>>>> correctly then this will be accepted and getVersion() will return 7.1. >>>>> Yes, it needs to be updated and it needs to be fixed. Thanks for finding >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>>> Fields or methods is another discussion point for the base and runtime >>>>>> versions. >>>>> My thinking is, in this case fields and methods are equivalent, the >>>>> method not giving any more flexibility than a field. For example the >>>>> method JarFile.baseVersion will just return the value contained in the >>>>> private final static field BASE_VERSION. Or the public final static >>>>> field BASE_VERSION can be directly accessed. I see no advantage of a >>>>> method here. But I’m willing to be enlightened. >>>>> >>>>>> -Alan. >>> >> >>
