I'm aware this might be a broad question (there's no specific code for you to look at), but I'm hoping I'd get some insights as to what to do, or how to approach the problem.
To keep things simple, suppose the compiler that I'm writing performs these three steps:
parse (and bind all variables)
typecheck
codegen
Also the language that I'm building the compiler for wants to support late-analysis/late-binding (ie., it has a function that takes a String, which is to be compiled and executed as a piece of source-code during runtime).
Now during parse-phase, I have a piece of context that I need to keep around till run-time for the sole benefit of the aforementioned function (because it needs to parse and typecheck its argument in that context).
So the question, how should I do this? What do other compilers do?
Should I just serialise the context object to disk (codegen for it) and resurrect it during run-time or something?
Thanks
Yes, you'll need to emit the type information (or other context, you weren't very specific) in your object/executable files, so that your eval can read it at runtime. You might look at Java's .class file format for inspiration; Java doesn't have eval as such, but you can dynamically spin new bytecode at runtime that must be linked in a type-safe manner. David Conrad's comment is spot-on: this information can also be used to implement reflection, if your language has such a feature.
That's as much as I can help you without more specifics.
Related
I prefer working with files that are less than 1000 lines long, so am thinking of breaking up some Erlang modules into more bite-sized pieces.
Is there a way of doing this without expanding the public API of my library?
What I mean is, any time there is a module, any user can do module:func_exported_from_the_module. The only way to really have something be private that I know of is to not export it from any module (and even then holes can be poked).
So if there is technically no way to accomplish what I'm looking for, is there a convention?
For example, there are no private methods in Python classes, but the convention is to use a leading _ in _my_private_method to mark it as private.
I accept that the answer may be, "no, you must have 4K LOC files."
The closest thing to a convention is to use edoc tags, like #private and #hidden.
From the docs:
#hidden
Marks the function so that it will not appear in the
documentation (even if "private" documentation is generated). Useful
for debug/test functions, etc. The content can be used as a comment;
it is ignored by EDoc.
#private
Marks the function as private (i.e., not part of the public
interface), so that it will not appear in the normal documentation.
(If "private" documentation is generated, the function will be
included.) Only useful for exported functions, e.g. entry points for
spawn. (Non-exported functions are always "private".) The content can
be used as a comment; it is ignored by EDoc.
Please note that this answer started as a comment to #legoscia's answer
Different visibilities for different methods is not currently supported.
The current convention, if you want to call it that way, is to have one (or several) 'facade' my_lib.erl module(s) that export the public API of your library/application. Calling any internal module of the library is playing with fire and should be avoided (call them at your own risk).
There are some very nice features in the BEAM VM that rely on being able to call exported functions from any module, such as
Callbacks (funs/anonymous funs), MFA, erlang:apply/3: The calling code does not need to know anything about the library, just that it's something that needs to be called
Behaviours such as gen_server need the previous point to work
Hot reloading: You can upgrade the bytecode of any module without stopping the VM. The code server inside the VM maintains at most two versions of the bytecode for any module, redirecting external calls (those with the Module:) to the most recent version and the internal calls to the current version. That's why you may see some ?MODULE: calls in long-running servers, to be able to upgrade the code
You'd be able to argue that these points'd be available with more fine-grained BEAM-oriented visibility levels, true. But I don't think it would solve anything that's not solved with the facade modules, and it'd complicate other parts of the VM/code a great deal.
Bonus
Something similar applies to records and opaque types, records only exist at compile time, and opaque types only at dialyzer time. Nothing stops you from accessing their internals anywhere, but you'll only find problems if you go that way:
You insert a new field in the record, suddenly, all your {record_name,...} = break
You use a library that returns an opaque_adt(), you know that it's a list and use like so. The library is upgraded to include the size of the list, so now opaque_adt() is a tuple() and chaos ensues
Only those functions that are specified in the -export attribute are visible to other modules i.e "public" functions. All other functions are private. If you have specified -compile(export_all) only then all functions in module are visible outside. It is not recommended to use -compile(export_all).
I don't know of any existing convention for Erlang, but why not adopt the Python convention? Let's say that "library-private" functions are prefixed with an underscore. You'll need to quote function names with single quotes for that to work:
-module(bar).
-export(['_my_private_function'/0]).
'_my_private_function'() ->
foo.
Then you can call it as:
> bar:'_my_private_function'().
foo
To me, that communicates clearly that I shouldn't be calling that function unless I know what I'm doing. (and probably not even then)
What is a "suitable guard" and what does it look like?
Linked this question because it refers to the same compiler message and the answer mentions a guard but not how to create one. Looked through the AspectJ docs but did not find and answer there.
This Lint warning is usually switched off in AJDT (AspectJ Development Tools) within Eclipse, but you can activate it as a warning or even error like this (I had to do it to actually see it at all when trying to reproduce your issue):
You can just ignore the Lint warning because basically it only says that there is no way for certain pointcuts to populate the thisJoinPoint object lazily during runtime because the pointcut has no dynamic component like if(), cflow() or similar, which is actually good news because it means that all your joinpoints can be determined statically during compile/weave time and are thus faster than dynamic pointcuts. On the other hand, the warning says that the tjp object always has to be created because for some reason it is also always needed during runtime and thus cannot be instantiated lazily.
Do I really have to use the ClassImp macro to benefit the automatic dictionary and streamer generation in ROOT? Some online tutorials and examples mention it but I noticed that simply adding the ClassDef(MyClass, <ver>) macro to MyClass.h and processing it with rootcint/rootcling already generates most of such code.
I did look at Rtypes.h where these macros are defined but to follow preprocessor macros calling each other is not easy and so, it would be nice if experts could confirm the role of ClassImp. I am specifically interested in recent versions of ROOT >= 5.34
Here is the answer I got on roottalk mailing list confirming that the usage of ClassImp is essentially outdated.
ClassImp is used to register in the TClass the name of the source file
for the class. This was used in particular by THtml (which has now
been deprecated in favor of Doxygen). So unless you code/framework
needs to know the name of the source files, it is no longer necessary
to have ClassImp.
ClassDef is necessary for class inheriting from TObject (or from any
classes that has a ClassDef). In the other cases, it provide
accelerator that makes the I/O slightly faster (and thus is
technically not compulsory in this case). It also assign a version
number to the schema layout which simplifies writing schema evolution
rules (on the other hand, there is other alternative to assign a
version number to the schema layout).
What exactly are you trying to do? The ClassImp and ClassDef macros add members to the class that provide Run-Time Type Information and allow the class to be written to root files. If you are not interested in that, then don't bother with these macros.
I never use them.
TL;DR
Please provide a piece of code written in some well known dynamic language (e.g. JavaScript) and how that code would look like in Java bytecode using invokedynamic and explain why the usage of invokedynamic is a step forward here.
Background
I have googled and read quite a lot about the not-that-new-anymore invokedynamic instruction which everyone on the internet agrees on that it will help speed dynamic languages on the JVM. Thanks to stackoverflow I managed to get my own bytecode instructions with Sable/Jasmin to run.
I have understood that invokedynamic is useful for lazy constants and I also think that I understood how the OpenJDK takes advantage of invokedynamic for lambdas.
Oracle has a small example, but as far as I can tell the usage of invokedynamic in this case defeats the purpose as the example for "adder" could much simpler, faster and with roughly the same effect expressed with the following bytecode:
aload whereeverAIs
checkcast java/lang/Integer
aload whereeverBIs
checkcast java/lang/Integer
invokestatic IntegerOps/adder(Ljava/lang/Integer;Ljava/lang/Integer;)Ljava/lang/Integer;
because for some reason Oracle's bootstrap method knows that both arguments are integers anyway. They even "admit" that:
[..]it assumes that the arguments [..] will be Integer objects. A bootstrap method requires additional code to properly link invokedynamic [..] if the parameters of the bootstrap method (in this example, callerClass, dynMethodName, and dynMethodType) vary.
Well yes, and without that interesing "additional code" there is no point in using invokedynamic here, is there?
So after that and a couple of further Javadoc and Blog entries I think that I have a pretty good grasp on how to use invokedynamic as a poor replacement when invokestatic/invokevirtual/invokevirtual or getfield would work just as well.
Now I am curious how to actually apply the invokedynamic instruction to a real world usecase so that it actually is some improvements over what we could with "traditional" invocations (except lazy constants, I got those...).
Actually, lazy operations are the main advantage of invokedynamic if you take the term “lazy creation” broadly. E.g., the lambda creation feature of Java 8 is a kind of lazy creation that includes the possibility that the actual class containing the code that will be finally invoked by the invokedynamic instruction doesn’t even exist prior to the execution of that instruction.
This can be projected to all kind of scripting languages delivering code in a different form than Java bytecode (might be even in source code). Here, the code may be compiled right before the first invocation of a method and remains linked afterwards. But it may even become unlinked if the scripting language supports redefinition of methods. This uses the second important feature of invokedynamic, to allow mutable CallSites which may be changed afterwards while supporting maximal performance when being invoked frequently without redefinition.
This possibility to change an invokedynamic target afterwards allows another option, linking to an interpreted execution on the first invocation, counting the number of executions and compiling the code only after exceeding a threshold (and relinking to the compiled code then).
Regarding dynamic method dispatch based on a runtime instance, it’s clear that invokedynamic can’t elide the dispatch algorithm. But if you detect at runtime that a particular call-site will always call the method of the same concrete type you may relink the CallSite to an optimized code which will do a short check if the target is that expected type and performs the optimized action then but branches to the generic code performing the full dynamic dispatch only if that test fails. The implementation may even de-optimize such a call-site if it detects that the fast path check failed a certain number of times.
This is close to how invokevirtual and invokeinterface are optimized internally in the JVM as for these it’s also the case that most of these instructions are called on the same concrete type. So with invokedynamic you can use the same technique for arbitrary lookup algorithms.
But if you want an entirely different use case, you can use invokedynamic to implement friend semantics which are not supported by the standard access modifier rules. Suppose you have a class A and B which are meant to have such a friend relationship in that A is allowed to invoke private methods of B. Then all these invocations may be encoded as invokedynamic instructions with the desired name and signature and pointing to a public bootstrap method in B which may look like this:
public static CallSite bootStrap(Lookup l, String name, MethodType type)
throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException {
if(l.lookupClass()!=A.class || (l.lookupModes()&0xf)!=0xf)
throw new SecurityException("unprivileged caller");
l=MethodHandles.lookup();
return new ConstantCallSite(l.findStatic(B.class, name, type));
}
It first verifies that the provided Lookup object has full access to A as only A is capable of constructing such an object. So sneaky attempts of wrong callers are sorted out at this place. Then it uses a Lookup object having full access to B to complete the linkage. So, each of these invokedynamic instructions is permanently linked to the matching private method of B after the first invocation, running at the same speed as ordinary invocations afterwards.
This question already has answers here:
What is reflection and why is it useful?
(23 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was just curious, why should we use reflection in the first place?
// Without reflection
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.hello();
// With reflection
Class cls = Class.forName("Foo");
Object foo = cls.newInstance();
Method method = cls.getMethod("hello", null);
method.invoke(foo, null);
We can simply create an object and call the class's method, but why do the same using forName, newInstance and getMthod functions?
To make everything dynamic?
Simply put: because sometimes you don't know either the "Foo" or "hello" parts at compile time.
The vast majority of the time you do know this, so it's not worth using reflection. Just occasionally, however, you don't - and at that point, reflection is all you can turn to.
As an example, protocol buffers allows you to generate code which either contains full statically-typed code for reading and writing messages, or it generates just enough so that the rest can be done by reflection: in the reflection case, the load/save code has to get and set properties via reflection - it knows the names of the properties involved due to the message descriptor. This is much (much) slower but results in considerably less code being generated.
Another example would be dependency injection, where the names of the types used for the dependencies are often provided in configuration files: the DI framework then has to use reflection to construct all the components involved, finding constructors and/or properties along the way.
It is used whenever you (=your method/your class) doesn't know at compile time the type should instantiate or the method it should invoke.
Also, many frameworks use reflection to analyze and use your objects. For example:
hibernate/nhibernate (and any object-relational mapper) use reflection to inspect all the properties of your classes so that it is able to update them or use them when executing database operations
you may want to make it configurable which method of a user-defined class is executed by default by your application. The configured value is String, and you can get the target class, get the method that has the configured name, and invoke it, without knowing it at compile time.
parsing annotations is done by reflection
A typical usage is a plug-in mechanism, which supports classes (usually implementations of interfaces) that are unknown at compile time.
You can use reflection for automating any process that could usefully use a list of the object's methods and/or properties. If you've ever spent time writing code that does roughly the same thing on each of an object's fields in turn -- the obvious way of saving and loading data often works like that -- then that's something reflection could do for you automatically.
The most common applications are probably these three:
Serialization (see, e.g., .NET's XmlSerializer)
Generation of widgets for editing objects' properties (e.g., Xcode's Interface Builder, .NET's dialog designer)
Factories that create objects with arbitrary dependencies by examining the classes for constructors and supplying suitable objects on creation (e.g., any dependency injection framework)
Using reflection, you can very easily write configurations that detail methods/fields in text, and the framework using these can read a text description of the field and find the real corresponding field.
e.g. JXPath allows you to navigate objects like this:
//company[#name='Sun']/address
so JXPath will look for a method getCompany() (corresponding to company), a field in that called name etc.
You'll find this in lots of frameworks in Java e.g. JavaBeans, Spring etc.
It's useful for things like serialization and object-relational mapping. You can write a generic function to serialize an object by using reflection to get all of an object's properties. In C++, you'd have to write a separate function for every class.
I have used it in some validation classes before, where I passed a large, complex data structure in the constructor and then ran a zillion (couple hundred really) methods to check the validity of the data. All of my validation methods were private and returned booleans so I made one "validate" method you could call which used reflection to invoke all the private methods in the class than returned booleans.
This made the validate method more concise (didn't need to enumerate each little method) and garuanteed all the methods were being run (e.g. someone writes a new validation rule and forgets to call it in the main method).
After changing to use reflection I didn't notice any meaningful loss in performance, and the code was easier to maintain.
in addition to Jons answer, another usage is to be able to "dip your toe in the water" to test if a given facility is present in the JVM.
Under OS X a java application looks nicer if some Apple-provided classes are called. The easiest way to test if these classes are present, is to test with reflection first
some times you need to create a object of class on fly or from some other place not a java code (e.g jsp). at that time reflection is useful.