On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:39:59 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlah...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> ...
> Uh, I just realized it may be necessary to implement `Class.isSealed()`
> differently. Consider:
>
> ```
> sealed class Sealed permits Unknown {}
> ```
>
> Where `Unknown` does not exist at runtime. So getPermittedSubclasses0()
> returns an empty array(?). But isSealed should return `true`, right?
> (Possibly, we could leave this from the first integration, but seems like
> something that should be done. Note that in the previous/JDK 15
> implementation, isSealed() would return true in this case.)
@lahodaj I raised this issue here:
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-October/002626.html
Relevant comment inline:
> The recent change (proposed on this list) to Class::getPermittedSubclasses,
> means that it will no longer be possible to reflectively return permitted
> subclasses that are not loaded, or more specifically “loadable" - the classes
> must exist somewhere. Currently, in JDK 15, permittedSubclasses will return
> class descriptors for non-loadable classes. I think that this is ok, we just
> need to ensure that it fits into the other rules here.
Yep. I think this is a good change, and I think there's nothing wrong with the
reflection API either ignoring some entries or reporting class loading errors.
Best to do whatever the NestMembers query does.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1483
