JDWP reference implementation does not return anonymous nested classes?

Question

Using
$ java -version
java version "1.6.0_22"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_22-b04)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 17.1-b03, mixed mode, sharing)
it appears that when I connect with JDWP and issue a NestedTypes command, the result does not include anonymous nested types. The only references to this that I could find is a comment in a svn commit at apache (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-commits/200611.mbox/%[email protected]%3E)
Is this intentional and desired? Is there a way to get all of the nested types, including the anonymous ones? I could do ClassesBySignature with "package.ClassName$*" as the signature and filter out doubly nested classes, but that seems overly complicated.

Answer 1

exept, you can NOT have an implementation of an
abstract class (which foundPlugin) is without an
implementation of all it's subclasses (such as
argsObject) You're mistaken in a couple of ways here.
First, a nested class is not the same as a subclass.
Second, a concrete class must have implementations for all its methods, but it can still have an abstract nested class.
Third, you can have an instance of a concrete class that has abstract subclasses. Object is concrete and has many concrete subclasses. Classes don't know anything about their subclasses.
This compiles.
public abstract class AbOut {
  public abstract class AbIn {  public abstract void bar(); }
public class ConcOut extends AbOut {
  public abstract class AbIn2 { public abstract void foo();}
foundPlugin MUST have an implementation
of argsObject, according to the rules of java,And you think this because...?
You read it in the JLS? Citation please.
You tried to compile and it failed? My sample above demonstrates the countereample. If I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, please post an example
Or maybe you just thought it had to be that way because that seemed the most intuitive and when it wasn't, rather than trying to understand or adjust your thinking, you figured it would be more fun to throw a hissy fit and call Java "stupid"?