[1360] in java-interest
Re: "perform:" and Java
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles L. Perkins)
Thu Aug 31 00:06:53 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 19:11:59 -0400
From: "Charles L. Perkins" <clp@home.HarvardSq.com>
To: Pat Niemeyer <pat@icon-stl.net>
Cc: java-interest@java.sun.com
Yes, I believe you are correct on both counts.
Reference my longer earlier article in the archives with some time
like "Fully dynamic method dispatch considered useful."
The compiler generate safe bytecodes as it is, so at a minuimum you
have to do the same check it does (for private/protected violations,
for example), but other than that, it's not so much a security issue
as a simplicity and reliability issue (i.e., if run-time exceptions
bother you, "doesNotUnderstand:" might feel like the plague).
Charles
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:38:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pat Niemeyer <pat@icon-stl.net>
To: "Charles L. Perkins" <clp@home.HarvardSq.com>
Subject: Re: "perform:" and Java
I guess I don't miss it that much because I've never had it available
to me... ;)
So, on a related topic, have you ever gotten a clear picture of why
"perform" would be a security problem?
There's run-time checking on method calls anyway isn't there?
(for existance at least)
Is it just because they want to keep the language simple and static?
Pat
-
Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list!
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
