On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:33:09 GMT, Glavo <d...@openjdk.org> wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/util/Hex256.java line 38: >> >>> 36: >>> 37: @Stable >>> 38: public static final short[] DIGITS; >> >> It's a bit smelly to have a public static field of type array. >> Static analysers are likely to flag this. >> It would be better to make the field private and have a public static method >> that returns DIGITS.clone() - then each class that needs it (and if I'm not >> mistaken there are only two) could encapsulate its own private copy. > >> It's a bit smelly to have a public static field of type array. Static >> analysers are likely to flag this. It would be better to make the field >> private and have a public static method that returns DIGITS.clone() - then >> each class that needs it (and if I'm not mistaken there are only two) could >> encapsulate its own private copy. > > I don't think this is a problem. If users can access JDK internal packages, > it can do many things. For example, through > `JavaLangAccess::getEnumConstantsShared`, an array shared within JDK can be > obtained. > > Now that we trust the permission control of JPMS, such a requirement seems > somewhat rigid.
This array takes some time to prepare. We don't want each class to copy a large array when we can just prepare it once and use it everywhere within the JDK implementation. This array is, under no circumstances, leaked to users so it's safe. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14578#discussion_r1243758911
