This is the mail archive of the java-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Java project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: FAQ Update


>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

Bryce> Obviously, only a classes own native method's should be allowed
Bryce> access to its private fields and methods. We should really fix
Bryce> the offending code if privates are somehow being accessed
Bryce> outside the class, so this heuristic sounds like it would be a
Bryce> sufficient fix.

I looked, and I now believe we only violate protection for protected
or "default" fields.  I think private fields really are private right
now.  I saw this because gcjh translates private Java fields into
private C++ fields, meaning we can't violate that protection in native
code.  Java protected/default fields are translated to C++ public
fields.

I think it would be nice to have a gcjh flag to translate Java
protected/default to something else in C++ (protected, perhaps), to
enable stricter (but not really identical-to-Java) protection for
developers who want it.  Any comments?  If people like this idea, I'll
submit a PR (for now; someday we'll rewrite gcjh...).

Tom

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]