2016/1/28 8:12 -0800, Gil Tene <g...@azul.com>: > On Jan 27, 2016, at 9:41 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 27/01/2016 11:31 PM, Ivan Krylov wrote: >>> Earlier there was a discussion on this mail alias about the spin loop >>> hint proposal [1]. Based on the feedback from that discussion some >>> changes were incorporated and the JEP has been filed [2]. There seems to >>> be a consensus on the API side. The JEP is now in a draft state and I >>> hope this JEP will get targeted for java 9 shortly. >> >> The discussion in [1] continued in: >> >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-December/037063.html >> >> but ended abruptly. In particular Mark's query as to why this moved >> from Thread to Runtime was seemingly left unanswered. > > The thread continued, but it looks like due to cross-posting with > concurrency-interest and people replying on the thread dropping the > cores-libs-dev recipient somehow.
I was wondering what happened to that thread ... > See continuations of the thread > here: > http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14576 > and here: > http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14580 > > Mark's question on why this was moved from Thread to Runtime is > discussed in detail there. An easy summary in a single message body > can be found here: > http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014587.html > . So that we have a self-contained record for posterity in the OpenJDK mail archive, can someone please summarize the reasoning to this list, core-libs-dev? I also suggested that this single method doesn't really need a JEP. You can do it that way if you really want to, but it will take a bit more time. - Mark
