Jigsaw Hackday in London - Anything in particular you want us to look at?

[Jeroen Frijters]

Hi Mark,

I have a passionate dislike for Unsafe, but I have to agree with Vitaly and Rémi. Until there are alternatives, it makes no sense to add more annoyances.

Regards,
Jeroen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jigsaw-dev [mailto:jigsaw-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf
> Of mark.reinhold at oracle.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 18:12
> To: Vitaly Davidovich
> Cc: jigsaw-dev at openjdk.java.net; adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Jigsaw Hackday in London - Anything in particular you want
> us to look at?
> 
> 2015/6/23 8:45 -0700, vitalyd at gmail.com:
> > Yes, but until all the "safe" replacements are in place and vetted
> (e.g.
> > performance is on par with Unsafe, same functionality is available,
> > etc), I don't see the point of making it even more annoying to grab
> > hold of.  The people who are using it will continue using it until the
> > replacements are available, and this is just going to annoy them.
> 
> That's precisely the point.
> 
> sun.misc.Unsafe and its ilk will go away one day.  In preparation for
> that, making it a bit harder to use will motivate its current users to
> consider whether they really do need to use it -- some do, but some
> don't.
> 
> If you absolutely do need it then now is the time to start looking at
> the alternatives in development, and contribute to those efforts in
> order to make sure that your needs are met.  Paul's work on variable
> handles (JEP 193 [1]), e.g., is far enough along that feedback would be
> useful.
> 
> Making sun.misc.Unsafe harder to use will also help the many users who
> unknowingly depend upon this unsupported API, via libraries which do
> depend upon it, to become aware of that dependence.  They can then
> either seek alternatives or ask the maintainers of those libraries to do
> so.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/193