10

I saw some codes in slf4j as show below. I don't know why to avoid constant folding in here. Is it necessary to do that? or just best practice. what's the benefit of doing this?

/** * Declare the version of the SLF4J API this implementation is compiled against. * The value of this field is usually modified with each release. */ // to avoid constant folding by the compiler, this field must *not* be final public static String REQUESTED_API_VERSION = "1.6"; // !final**
Improve this question
7
  • Have you looked at the wiki on this topic? I think it explains it pretty well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_folding Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:04
  • You can use a method instead of exposing this field (probably best), use final but pass the value through a method ("1.6".toString()) or add some code to prevent it being a compile-time constant yet not add any unnecessary bytecode (null!=null?"": "1.6"). Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:11
  • Yeah, public static constants are icky! Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:22
  • @CoolBeans, I have checked the wiki. The example in wiki is explaining what the constant folding is. I just confused at this point. Thanks for everyone explanation. It seems a best practice for library release. :) Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 21:19
  • The code is bad and I'd bet it dates for years. It should have been a method call or something like that: public static String REQUESTED_API_VERSION = new String("1."+"6"); //new String is not literal, so it'll result in GETSTATIC Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 11:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

In the particular case where you are releasing a library, you often don't have control of the final version of the logging library that is eventually linked in at the end. For example you are using version 1.6, and the application that is using your library might use 1.6.1 to get a bugfix. Since it's only a point release the API should be compatible, but if your library inspects the SLF4J version it should show 1.6.1 not 1.6.

If the constant is inlined you will see 1.6 (since it's copied into your class file) even if the library is upgraded after the fact.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

A project I used to work on, AviSynth, found this out the hard way when they went to extend their ABI between minor versions. Wasn't possible due to too much inlining and too much VC6 dependence. The next major version used a "virtual" ABI and worked great.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.