<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/11/2016 6:37 AM, Volker Simonis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+3eh13Bhnp7Z_4u1xWnbvLofafizsCV4590MTLZ4c6LasSVdw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi Jon,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't think about SAP
when you sent your initial mail ;)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yup, I should have just addressed it to the alias so that everyone's
mail filters<br>
would have pushed it off to the side for later reading :-)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+3eh13Bhnp7Z_4u1xWnbvLofafizsCV4590MTLZ4c6LasSVdw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But seriously: SAP is supporting CMS and will probably do so
for quite a long time (simply because we do support old Java
releases for a very long time).</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+3eh13Bhnp7Z_4u1xWnbvLofafizsCV4590MTLZ4c6LasSVdw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Completely removing CMS from the HotSpot code base may
increase these support costs considerably for us.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you plan to really delete the sources from the repos or do
you only plan to disable it at build time?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I just don't know how this is going to play out. I expect that the
OpenJDK community <br>
will want the sources to stay. In such a case Oracle would want
them segregated sufficiently<br>
that we don't build the the sources. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+3eh13Bhnp7Z_4u1xWnbvLofafizsCV4590MTLZ4c6LasSVdw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I think only disable it at build time would make it
easier for us and others to still support it in the future. But in
that case we really have to come up with a better development
model which would allow external developers to directly push CMS
changes (much like ppc64 or aarch64 changes). Everything else
would be a real PITA.</blockquote>
<br>
I think some model like ppc64/aarch64 would be a good way to go.
That would be a<br>
nice side effect of this change. You know better than I on how to
get there. <br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+3eh13Bhnp7Z_4u1xWnbvLofafizsCV4590MTLZ4c6LasSVdw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you and best regards,</div>
<div>Volker</div>
<div><br>
On Saturday, June 11, 2016, Jon Masamitsu <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jon.masamitsu@oracle.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jon.masamitsu@oracle.com">jon.masamitsu@oracle.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Added
hotspot-gc-dev.<br>
<br>
On 6/10/2016 6:17 PM, Jon Masamitsu wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Jungwoo, Ramki, Tony (and other friends of CMS),<br>
<br>
I wanted to be sure you guys saw this JEP.<br>
<br>
Deprecate the CMS garbage collector (UseConcMarkSweepGC).<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8142518"
target="_blank">http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8142518</a><br>
<br>
I know you do development on CMS and wanted to know if<br>
had thoughts about the future of CMS.<br>
<br>
At some point Oracle is going to stop supporting CMS.<br>
The burden of testing and maintaining the CMS code doesn't<br>
make much sense given that we think G1 is the better<br>
collector. If we deprecate CMS in jdk9, support would be
dropped<br>
no earlier than jdk10.<br>
<br>
Have you guys talked about what you would like to do with
regard<br>
to continuing CMS development without Oracle's help?<br>
<br>
I've been told that if CMS exists in the Oracle binaries,
then<br>
customers will expect it to work. So not supporting CMS<br>
means it is not in the build.<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>