<div dir="ltr">+1 from me - when the proposed change lands we'll reach out to our customers and get them to try it.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br>Martijn</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 June 2015 at 09:39, Kirk Pepperdine <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kirk@kodewerk.com" target="_blank">kirk@kodewerk.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Charlie,<br>
<br>
An excellent summary. I like Mark’s suggestion that there be a path to roll back should we discover something before GA.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Kirk<br>
<br>
BTW, I’ve reconfigured everything I use to use G1<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:08 AM, <a href="mailto:mark.reinhold@oracle.com">mark.reinhold@oracle.com</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
> 2015/6/4 6:44 -0700, <a href="mailto:charlie.hunt@oracle.com">charlie.hunt@oracle.com</a>:<br>
>> Wanted to come back to this thread, continue the dialog, reiterate the<br>
>> objective, (try to) summarize the concerns and put forth a potential<br>
>> plan for this JEP going forward.<br>
>><br>
>> Intent: Use G1 GC as the default collector chosen by the JVM when no<br>
>> GC is explicitly set at the JVM command line.<br>
>><br>
>> ...<br>
><br>
> Charlie -- thanks for the excellent summary of this wide-ranging<br>
> discussion!<br>
><br>
>> ...<br>
>><br>
>> Suggested plan for moving forward:<br>
>> - Make G1 the default collector in JDK 9, continue to evaluate G1 and<br>
>> enhance G1 in JDK 9<br>
>> - Mitigate risk by reverting back to Parallel GC before JDK 9 goes<br>
>> “Generally Available” (Sept 22, 2016 [1]) if warranted by continuing<br>
>> to monitor observations and experiences with G1 in both JDK 9<br>
>> pre-releases and latest JDK 8 update releases<br>
>> - Address enhancing ergonomics for selecting a default GC as a<br>
>> separate JEP if future observations suggests its needed<br>
><br>
> I think this is a fine plan.<br>
><br>
> Stefan -- To move forward with JEP 248, could you please revise the<br>
> second item in the "Risks and Assumptions" section to note that there<br>
> is some concern that G1 might not be ready to become the default, that<br>
> making it the default now will allow us to get more feedback on it, and<br>
> that if it proves to be not ready then we'll revert the default to the<br>
> Parallel GC in time for JDK 9 GA?<br>
><br>
> Ben -- Can you live with this plan?<br>
><br>
> - Mark<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>