Hi Attila, Cool, reached out to a few people (Scala & Clojure in particular) JIC they missed it and pointed them directly at the JEP and this thread. I think the API will be all the richer when it hits its 2nd real enemy (so to speak) :-).
Cheers, Martijn On 18 October 2015 at 21:57, Attila Szegedi <attila.szeg...@oracle.com> wrote: > Sure. For what’s it worth, this is for all practical purposes Dynalink, in > the form I’ve been developing for years as a standalone library on GitHub > and presenting about it at JVM Language Summits over several years, so I’d > expect a significant amount of awareness is there. > > The primary motivator for this JEP is that I finally came to the point > where I want to take it out of the jdk.internal.* space and into jdk.* > space, so it is a supported API available to others as well, not just > Nashorn. There were already people trying to do so something with the > jdk.internal.* APIs, e.g. < > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-March/004250.html> > and discovering that JDK 9 is blocking that path. > > For quite long I was reluctant to bring it out into the open as we were > making lots of improvements on it internally driven by real-world use > requirements coming from Nashorn, but it was always the intent to > eventually do so. It was just a matter of finding the right time to do it: > after it seems to have stabilized internally (so we feel fairly confident > that there’s nothing in the design that could be invalidated or > incomplete), but before people really want to use it but can’t. We’re > obviously somewhat late on “people want to use it" metric, see above linked > e-mail, but I feel we’re now reached the right time with regard to > stabilization. > > Which of course is not to say that we won’t discuss this with other > language implementers further; getting the current machinery underlying > Nashorn out there as an accessible API (with a lot of cleanup and > exhaustive documentation, as befitting a supported API) is the first step, > and then when it’s out there and people can - as somene said - kick the > tires we can mold it further with input from the community as necessary. > > On a purely personal sidenote, I’m extremely excited to move forward with > this. Maybe I’ll eventually write a (highly romanticized, of course) story > of how Dynalink got started, but if I just look at it chronologically, it > is something I’ve started thinking about circa 2007, wrote an initial > prototype in 2008, and the first invokedynamic-based reformulation in 2009, > a later iteration of which got integrated into Nashorn in 2012, and then > developed alongside it ever since. So, it’s been part of my work life, on > and off for good 7-8 years now. I’m obviously thrilled to be taking it to > maturation with OpenJDK community :-) > > Attila. > > > On Oct 17, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > This looks very, very promising. Would it help to get the language > maintainers of the most popular scripting/dynamic JVM languages involved > ASAP? Happy to contact Groovy, Clojure, Scala, JRuby folks (although I > suspect many of them are on this list). > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On 16 October 2015 at 18:35, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> New JEP Candidate: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/276 >> >> - Mark >> > > >
