On 10/23/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we have several different items/questions to discuss:
1) Is it legal to generate "private" modifier to a local class?
The Java Language Specification, Third Edition part 14.3 states
<snip>
It is a compile-time error if a local class declaration contains any
one of the following access modifiers: public, protected, private, or
static.
</snip>
So it seems a compiler isn't allowed to put "private" modifier. Thoughts?
This is the part I was commenting, so I put my thoughts here. This is
from the language specification and only applies to Java syntax and
yes, that's an error and it makes sense. But from the class file
(bytecode) perspective, a local class must be defined in its own file
and this class is not accessible by any other class in the package
(not default or package-private scope), so I would think that it
should be marked private.
My reasoning would be that the language spec is saying a class
modifier is illegal for a local class because within the scope of a
method there is no concept or more or less accessible than the method.
Thus, if we promoted this concept to an inner class, it would be
conceptually the same as a private inner class because it would be off
limits from other classes in the same package.
I think what the language specification is say here is much like the
scope identifiers of methods on an interface. If the interface is
public, all methods are public, even if they aren't declared public.
2) getEnclosingClass and isLocalClass doesn't give correct result when
compiled with ECJ. It seems to be a seperate problem but this can
affect the algorithm which determines member accessibility. Seems this
should be resolved first.
3) Elena and I looked at the algorithm which determines member
accessibility and found a problem in it. To resolve the problem we
need to fix getEnclosingClass. So I propose to concentrate on this
method for now.
Evgueni
On 10/24/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By "inner class" you mean an automatic/local class in this case; a
> class declared inside a method. It would seem appropriate that a local
> class is declared private. Only the method that contains the class
> declaration can see it.
>
> Do you disagree with what ECJ is generating?
>
> -Nathan
>
> On 10/23/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 October 2006 01:08 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > > I haven't had a chance to look at the issue (JIRAs down right now,
> > > probably part of the infrastructure move), but have you tried
> > > comparing the actual class files of the problematic class or classes.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest compiling the files using ECJ, save them off, compile with
> > > Sun/BEA/etc, save them off and then run javap from a single JDK on
> > > each of the class files and compare them for differences.
> >
> > Yes, it is quite interesting how different compilers produce different class
> > attributes, it looks like this is the main problem with the code. ECJ
insists
> > on marking inner classes private. Elena was kind to send me another test
> > which she wrote while JIRA was down and it shows even a bigger difference
> > between the compilers - it produces different output on RI. In the 2nd test
> > ECJ creates an inner in anonymous class Test1931_2$1$LocalClass while Sun
> > creates Test1931_2$1LocalClass. This gives different output from
> > cc.getEnclosingClass and cc.isLocalClass where cc is the used inner class.
> >
> > Nevertheless RI allows the access to the inner private class it seems. It
> > doesn't throw the exception which drlvm does. The exception source is
drlvm's
> > kernel class ReflectExporter and the method in question is allowAccess which
> > calls allowClassAccess at line 113. This check is the one and the only
chance
> > to return true in this case.
> >
> > I've debugged the code with recently implemented debugging support of drlvm
> > using eclipse (jdwp agent has to be build for this from HARMONY-1410, also
> > kernel classes for drlvm aren't compiled with debug support, build script
has
> > to be hacked) but I just don't know all of the access checks specification
> > statements to make a decision which one is not correct.
> >
> > P.S. I used ecj 3.2 which we use for current classlib compilation.
> >
> > --
> > Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division
> >
>
