From ant-dev-return-23143-qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org Thu Jan 17 02:52:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 48452 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 02:52:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 02:52:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 27470 invoked by uid 97); 17 Jan 2002 02:52:23 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27427 invoked by uid 97); 17 Jan 2002 02:52:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27412 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 02:52:21 -0000 Message-ID: <022201c19f02$74dbd700$6844d6d1@compaq> Reply-To: "Magesh Umasankar" From: "Magesh Umasankar" To: "Ant Developers List" References: Subject: Re: ExecuteJava and initializeClass Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:55:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Conor MacNeill" > > > > > You'll need a valid Constructor object for that and I'm not sure > > > it will work but worth a try. > > > > JVM guarantees that each class *will* have a constructor, either > > provided by default or explicitly specified. So, getting a constructor > > object is easy and it can be safely assumed that we will get > > a constructor object when using reflection. > > Yes, I know that :-). D'oh! I understood your comment wrongly and started off on what little Java I know ;-) > What I meant to question is whether when you then call > that with a set of illegal arguments, will it run the static initializers > under JDK 1.1. I thought the validation in the reflection code may have > thrown out first. If you have checked that and it works, cool. Please look under the evaluation section of http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4035125.html I have checked that after installing my patch, the PRs that you had pointed to still stay resolved under 1.1.7A, 1.2.1, 1.3.1 while at the same time doing away with calling no-arg constructor twice. I am downloading 1.1.8 now to check that out... Anyway, I am doing all these tests using Sun JVMs on Windows only. It would be helpful if somebody can cross verify this on other platforms as well. Test to carry out is essentially well defined in http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1362 Any volunteers? > > After you confirm, perhaps, I may even move this piece > > into AntClassLoader itself. > > Yes, that is where it should be. That is where it will go, finally, then :-) > > Conor > Cheers, Magesh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: