> On Sep 7, 2016, at 11:52 PM, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/09/2016 03:53, David Holmes wrote: > >> Despite code to contrary, I don't think the system classloader has "ever" >> been allowed to be null. If it can't be constructed then the whole >> initialization process will fail with an exception. > In the JDK then that's true, I think allowing it be null was for another > scenario. It's also possible it may have returned null during startup in > previous releases but that is hard to test (and completely changed in JDK 9 > so a non-issue).
Yes exactly. That’s one possible case before the system initialization was reworked in JDK 9. Mandy
