Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- From: "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:10:01 -0000
mark@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> And also, methods and fields can be obfuscated while strings cannot.
> So being able to call getName() on a Field has a big security advantage
> over using raw reflection.
Since this feature -- if it were added -- would certainly be implemented by the
compiler generating traditional (string-based) reflective code under-the-hood,
I don't think that it would permit more thorough obfuscation that is currently
possible.
Personally, I can see some motivation for this, but I think it provides too
little benefit to justify the cost in complexity (for me, the programmer,
having to learn and use an even /more/ grossly over-complicated language) nor
in development costs (/every/ tool which is Java source-code aware -- e.g..
Eclipse -- would have to be updated).
BTW, the syntax you propose would not work for reflective access to either
constructors or fields, and that -- IMO -- is a big negative point.
-- chris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- From: Chris Smith
- Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- References:
- Getting Method objects without reflection
- From: mark
- Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- From: Chris Smith
- Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- From: mark
- Getting Method objects without reflection
- Prev by Date: how to convert string to byte[]?
- Next by Date: Re: Gzip each chunk separately
- Previous by thread: Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- Next by thread: Re: Getting Method objects without reflection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|