[foreign-abi] On invokers

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

I'd like to point out the irony of your comment: you are complaining 
about lack of transparency on a thread which is discussing future 
directions for SystemABI support (where the currently proposed patch 
only works for Windows, only for downcalls). Speaking about open-ness, I 
think this is pretty much the best you can get?

I will disregard your comment on "you should do X instead of Y" - which, 
as been pointed out previously, is not helpful, and I will also 
disregard your "framework-ish APIs" remark, which is deliberately 
inflammatory. I think we can do better than that?

As for vectors, I believe the discussion John is referring to 
happened/is happening on the CSR front:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223348

(again, discussion publicly available).

And yes, there are times where, as normal people do, we need to stop and 
think about what we wanna do before starting a public debate on it. This 
is about the evolution of the Java platform, not about conducting 
opinion polls (although sometimes it helps to have dedicated surveys on 
specific topics, as we have done in the past [1]) - and it is a job that 
we take very seriously.

Maurizio

[1] - 
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-dev/2018-February/002669.html


On 25/09/2019 11:35, Samuel Audet wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> I must say, I really like the work you guys are doing on the vector 
> and ABI fronts, it's really great. I sincerely wish Panama could focus 
> more on that instead of also working on higher-level framework-ish APIs.
>
> I have one question though. Where are those "vigourous conversation" 
> happening? I don't have any quarrel with the work being discussed on 
> this thread, but it does give me the impression that a lot of the work 
> related to Panama is done in secret and that we're not getting the 
> full picture, about other things that I worry about like C++. If 
> that's the case, that's fine, OpenJDK doesn't need to be "open", but 
> it would help the community if you could be honest about it.
>
> Samuel
>
> On 9/25/19 9:25 AM, John Rose wrote:
>> (*Mature*  non-generalization appears when you have a road map with 
>> an endpoint, so you can say things like,
>> “You might ask my API to do extra task X, but you should really use a 
>> different API for that.”  Folks vary by
>> temperament which kind of premature-ness they are more likely to fall 
>> into.  Y'all know I’m an (a), so of course
>> I’m always on the lookout for signs of (b), whether they exist or 
>> not.  The Vector API is currently having a
>> vigourous conversation about such choices.)