[concurrency-interest] Spin Loop Hint support: Draft JEP proposal

[Gil Tene]

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:11 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 
> 2016/1/28 9:25 -0800, gil at azul.com:
>> This thread seems to have "hopped away" to the concurrency-interest
>> list in mid-Dec-2015. This posting is intended to capture a summary of
>> reasoning and some of the discussion there so that we have it in the
>> record in core-libs-dev. Mostly by including the contents of several
>> posts in the continuations of the original thread.
>> 
>> See thread continuations here:
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14576
>> and here:
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14580
>> 
>> Summary:
>> 
>> ...
> 
> Thanks for the summary.
> 
> I still don't buy the argument that this method belongs in j.l.Runtime.
> 
> To say that this method should go there because it's an instruction to
> the run-time system is pretty weak.  I agree with Vitaly [1] that if
> that's the threshold for adding methods to the Runtime class then lots
> of other stuff belongs there as well, including much of what's now in
> java.lang.Thread and java.util.concurrent and, arguably, anything else
> related to interacting with the environment in which the application
> runs (file and network I/O, process manipulation, etc.).
> 
> This thread-related method really belongs in either java.lang.Thread or
> java.util.concurrent.LockSupport.  j.l.Thread already has plenty of
> expert-level static methods related to the current thread, one of which
> (Thread::yield) is even a hint, just like this one.  j.u.c.LockSupport
> is even more obviously intended for expert users and hence may be the
> best choice, but I could live with either one.

Ok. In the interest of moving forward, lets settle on:

Thread.onSpinWait()

Same logic for the name, different receiver for the event. I can certainly live with it, and Doug seems ok with it as well.

— Gil.