ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Magesh Umasankar" <>
Subject Re: ExecuteJava and initializeClass
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:06:07 GMT
From: "Conor MacNeill" <>

> > Why is AntClassLoader.initializeClass(target) being called?
> > This method creates a new instance of the class by calling
> > its no-arg constructor. I mean, when main.invoke is called, the
> > static initializers of the class are anyway going to be invoked,
> > right?
> No, unfortunately not always, IIRC although I could be wrong :-) Certainly
> under JDK 1.1, static initializers are not always run when you load a
> through a classloader. This causes a problem for JDBC driver loading.
> Perhaps not required for ExecuteJava.

This is how I had understood the issue to be:

I might be recollecting it wrongly, but whenever I invoked
a method by reflection on a class, even in 1.1, it used to
result in the static initializers being called.  I agree static
initializers may not have been called when the class is
'loaded'.  But when a method is invoked (for the first time)
the static initializers would get called before 'first method
invocation'  Anyway, I will double check.  I will download JDK
1.1 and see what gives...  I know there used to be issues
with JDBC Driver loading, but still...

> BTW, Have you read the comments in the initializeClass method? I know it
> a hack. If you want to change it - feel free. It will be good to test your
> class under JDK 1.1.

I most definitely read the comments ;-)  Comments are so rare
I digest them with much fervour whenever they are available.
I am not so satisfied with the hack anyways - maybe a better
hack would be to invoke newInstance with a large (usually
unlikely) array of arguments - this would result in an
instantiation error because the constructor wouldn't
be found, but at the same time, the class would have been
loaded - I will confirm this for JDK 1.1.  We achive both aims - loading
the class as well as not calling default constructor.  What do you think?

> I can't seem to access CVSWeb at the moment to get more history for this.

In rev 1.9's checkin comments, you have explained the
reason behind doing it this way.

> > Or is it being invoked to work around some JDK bug?
> > The issue I have is that the class's constructor gets called
> > twice if the main method constructs this object also.
> Yes, this is a side-effect. Does this cause you problems?

Not exactly to me, but to people who have posted PRs ;-)
They say that their no-arg constructor performs a whole
bunch of further initialization, calling of various other
objects ;-( whcih essentially makes the whole app
sort of run twice...

> Conor


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message