Just clean code so that Module Layer parent/child mimics class loader delegation chain.
Thanks for the review! -Sundar On 6/1/2016 3:03 PM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote: > This looks good to me. > > I’m wondering: what would be the consequences of class loader inheritance not > reflecting module layer inheritance? > > Hannes > > >> Am 01.06.2016 um 11:14 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan >> <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com>: >> >> I had to update webrev to handle the case of appLoader being null in >> ScriptLoader. I had used Class.forName(String, boolean, ClassLoader). >> But that methods introduces a security check when caller is not >> bootstrap (like nashorn) and ClassLoader is null! In any case, >> bootloader delegation has already happened via parent delegation. So, >> I'm checking and handling appLoader null case by throwing >> ClassNotFoundException. >> >> Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8158338/webrev.01/ >> >> -Sundar >> >> On 6/1/2016 12:59 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. >>> >>> We have an existing test that depends on "split" delegation implemented >>> in the ScriptLoader. >>> >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/nashorn/file/7fb2bf00347b/test/script/basic/JDK-8024619.js >>> >>> The current code adjustment is about which loader is "parent" and which >>> one "side" delegatee. Previously, parent was Context's appLoader and >>> side-delegatee was the structure loader. >>> Now, it is other way around. But, the behavior seen from scripts should >>> remain same in either case. The aforementioned test (along with other >>> nashorn tests) passes with the adjusted >>> delegation setup as well. >>> >>> -Sundar >>> >>> On 6/1/2016 12:49 PM, Marcus Lagergren wrote: >>>> This looks good. Is it possible to test it? >>>> >>>> /M >>>> >>>>> On 01 Jun 2016, at 08:46, Sundararajan Athijegannathan >>>>> <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8158338/webrev.00/ for >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8158338 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -Sundar >>>>>