JSR 383 & the newer version-string scheme

[Brian Goetz]

We’d certainly welcome any review of these features.  But, please be careful drawing assumptions from the “fix version” on sub-bugs of a JEP — this is not a statement of planning, as much as a statement of optimism on the part of an individual developer.  

I can state definitively that Oracle has no plans to propose JEP 309 (which subsumes most of the individual issues you list) for 10.  It is simply too late for a change like this — which affects the class file format and therefore is high risk.  

This is what “missing the train” looks like; while the development window has not closed for 10, some changes are too big or risky to take in this close to the departure time, so while it looks like the train is still waiting on the platform, this feature has in fact missed it.  But that’s OK.  There’s another train coming soon.  

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:39 PM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Another interesting topic which is currently under review and
> according to the developers is planned for jdk 10 (although it has not
> yet been targeted):
> 
> JEP 309: Dynamic Class-File Constants
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177279
> 
> Updates to the Java Virtual Machine Specification
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189199
> 
> Minimal ConstantDynamic support
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186046
> Tool support for ConstantDynamic
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186209
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8186046-minimal-condy-support-hs/webrev/
> 
> Minimal set of bootstrap methods for dynamic constants
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187742
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8187742-condy-bootstraps/webrev/
> 
> Note that this change requires porting effort for the non-Oracle
> platforms and independent implementations and also for tools because
> it extends the class file format.
> 
> Regards,
> Volker
> 
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>> As a heads-up, there are discussions in OpenJDK regarding the proposed
>> version scheme.  A proposal has been made; there will be a JEP, but you may
>> be interested in following the discussion before that.
>> 
>> Latest proposal:
>>  http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-dev/2017-November/000089.html
>>