JEP 169: Value Objects

[Vitaly Davidovich]

Hi John,

Nice to see this effort moving forward.  While reading the JEP, I can't
help but think how complicated this sounds for JVM implementors.  Is
introducing bytecodes and new value type representation definitely a
nonstarter? I'm thinking a setup akin to the CLR.

I certainly understand the attraction of keeping bytecode the same, but
wouldn't it make the JVM impl more straightforward (and thus more robust,
stable, performant, etc) if value types/structs were first class citizens?

I'm sure you've thought about this plenty so I'm mostly curious to hear
your take on the tradeoffs and generally on how you think this approach
will shake out.

Thanks

Sent from my phone
On Nov 7, 2012 4:36 PM, "John Rose" <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

> Thanks!  This will move the conversation forward.
>
> -- John  (on my iPhone)
>
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>
> > Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/169
> >
> > - Mark
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/mlvm-dev/attachments/20121107/a83f80ce/attachment.html