JNI and JVM TI version numbers

[Alan Bateman]

On 05/01/2016 23:34, Iris Clark wrote:
> Hi, Alan.
>
> JNI and JVM TI version numbers weren’t considered.
>
> Updating the JNI version to drop the "1" similar to what we've done for other parts of the system seems like an obvious change we should make.
>
> I'll propose text for the JEP.
Thanks.

In Dan Daugherty's mail then he notes that the JNI version was updated 
in Java SE 1.2, 1.4, 6 and 8. So one thing that would be useful to 
capture somewhere is whether the policy of not rev'ing it when there 
aren't any additions/changes should continue. So for example, suppose we 
don't touch JNI in Java SE 10 then would we we add JNI_VERSION_10 or not?

> I assume that you'll handle the necessary code and other JNI spec updates for this change similar to the JDK 8 change in 8005716.
Yes, we have a bug tracking it and I think Harold is going to get it 
into JDK 9 in advance of our additions.

>
> I really like the idea of aligning the JVM TI version number, particularly since we need to update it anyway; however, I cannot properly judge the impact.  If it's no greater than what we've observed for the system properties, then we should do it now.
>
> If you and other JVM TI experts believe it is reasonable to update this version number, I'll take care of the JEP addition.  (It looks like it was changed to the present value in JDK 8 bug 8014135.)
>
I like the idea of just doing this too but it's not critical. I see 
Dan's reply where he doesn't think we should but this is based on JVM TI 
being independent, something it realistically hasn't been for many years.

Maybe it should be left as an open issue in the JEP until there is more 
input on this? We can start a discussion on serviceability-dev.

-Alan