JNI and JVM TI version numbers

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 1/7/16 6:27 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> 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.

Just an opinion. I don't have a strong preference either way.


> 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.

Getting the current Serviceability team's input would be good.

Dan


>
> -Alan
>