On 1/7/16 6:27 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 05/01/2016 23:34, Iris Clark wrote:
Hi, Alan.
JNI and JVM TI version numbers weren’t considered.
Updating the JNI version to drop the "1" similar to what we've done
for other parts of the system seems like an obvious change we should
make.
I'll propose text for the JEP.
Thanks.
In Dan Daugherty's mail then he notes that the JNI version was updated
in Java SE 1.2, 1.4, 6 and 8. So one thing that would be useful to
capture somewhere is whether the policy of not rev'ing it when there
aren't any additions/changes should continue. So for example, suppose
we don't touch JNI in Java SE 10 then would we we add JNI_VERSION_10
or not?
I assume that you'll handle the necessary code and other JNI spec
updates for this change similar to the JDK 8 change in 8005716.
Yes, we have a bug tracking it and I think Harold is going to get it
into JDK 9 in advance of our additions.
I really like the idea of aligning the JVM TI version number,
particularly since we need to update it anyway; however, I cannot
properly judge the impact. If it's no greater than what we've
observed for the system properties, then we should do it now.
If you and other JVM TI experts believe it is reasonable to update
this version number, I'll take care of the JEP addition. (It looks
like it was changed to the present value in JDK 8 bug 8014135.)
I like the idea of just doing this too but it's not critical. I see
Dan's reply where he doesn't think we should but this is based on JVM
TI being independent, something it realistically hasn't been for many
years.
Just an opinion. I don't have a strong preference either way.
Maybe it should be left as an open issue in the JEP until there is
more input on this? We can start a discussion on serviceability-dev.
Getting the current Serviceability team's input would be good.
Dan
-Alan
