Updated EA builds with initial implementations of current proposals

[Paul Benedict]

Thanks Andrew. Lots of emails flying around. I picked the wrong one. I do
see he made it clear in another post. Thanks.

Cheers,
Paul

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andrew Dinn <adinn at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 07/07/16 15:52, Paul Benedict wrote:
> > Hi Mark. Do these set of changes mean those alternative proposals are now
> > set in stone? I didn't know feedback was finished. For example, and I may
> > have missed this, but I can't recall one message in support of the
> > "requires static" syntax. As I said, I may have missed the supporters,
> but
> > I don't recall anyone championing that exact syntax. Almost everyone
> > objected to the use of "static" as a misleading use of the keyword.
> >
> > On the other hand, if this is just a tentative change to move the feature
> > set along, that makes more sense. I just want to understand the
> > expectation. Thank you.
>
> I though Alan's note made this clear
>
> "The jigsaw/jake forest has been updated with an initial implementation
> of the proposals that Mark brought to the jpms-spec-experts mailing list
> last week.
>
> ...
>
> The discussion on some of these issues is ongoing so don't treat
> anything as final yet. We'll refresh the builds as needed over the
> coming weeks."
>
> I believe the idea is to allow people to try out the proposals to see
> how (and how well) they work. I'm certainly glad of the chance to
> ascertain whether #ReflectiveAccessByInstrumentationAgents is up to
> scratch or not.
>
> regards,
>
>
> Andrew Dinn
> -----------
> Senior Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd
> Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
> Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
>