This is a discussion on Project Coin: Inducing contributory heap pollution - Solaris Rss ; US patent law defines various kinds of patent infringement, as do other jurisdictions. ( I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice! Check your local listings! Don't kill kittens! Example being used for analogy purposes only! ) One ...
US patent law defines various kinds of patent infringement, as do other jurisdictions. (I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice! Check your local listings! Don't kill kittens! Example being used for analogy purposes only! ) One can infringe on a patent directly, say, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing a patented widget without a suitable license. A computer scientist looking to infringe might (erroneously) believe the conditions for infringement can be circumvented by applying the familiar technique of adding a level of indirection. For example, one indirection would be selling 90% percent of the patented widget, leaving the end-user to complete the final 10% and thereby infringe. Such contributory infringement is also verboten. Likewise, providing step-by-step instructions on how to infringe the patent is outlawed as inducing infringement. Putting both techniques together, inducing contributory infringement is also disallowed.
Starting in JDK 5, a compiler must issue mandatory unchecked warnings at sites of possible heap pollution:
Java Language Specification, Third Edition — §126.96.36.199 Heap PollutionOne case where unchecked warnings occur is a call to a varargs method where the type of the variable argument is not reifiable. That is, where the type information for the parameter is not fully expressible at runtime due to the erasure of generics. Varargs are implemented using arrays and arrays are reified; that is, the component type of an array is stored internally and used when needed for various type checks at runtime. However, the type information stored for an array's component type cannot store the information needed to represent a non-reifiable parameterized type.
It is possible that a variable of a parameterized type refers to an object that is not of that parameterized type. This situation is known as heap pollution. This situation can only occur if the program performed some operation that would give rise to an unchecked warning at compile-time.
The mismatch between reified arrays being used to pass non-reified (and non-reifiable) parameterized types is the basis for the unchecked warnings when such conflicted methods are called. However in JDK 5, only calling one of conflicted methods causes a compile-time warning; declaring such a method doesn't lead to any similar warning. This is analogous to the compiler only warning of direct patent infringement, while ignoring or being oblivious too indirect infringement. While the mere existence of a conflicted varargs method does not cause heap pollution per se, its existence contributes to heap pollution by providing an easy way to cause heap pollution to occur and induces heap pollution by offering the method to be called. By this reasoning, if method calls that cause heap pollution deserve a compiler warning, so do method declarations which induce contributory heap pollution.
Additionally, the warnings issued for some calls to varargs methods involving heap pollution are arguably spurious since nothing bad happens. For example, calling various useful helper varargs methods in the platform trigger unchecked warnings, including: