On 1/6/2016 11:23 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
I've heard rumblings about the need to make JVM/TI changes due to
JigSaw so it makes sense the change the JVM/TI version number at
the same time. As Alan mentioned, JVM/TI versions weren't tied
to JDK releases so changing the major version from '1' to '9'
could be done at this time if we feel that aligning the JVM/TI
version number with the new Verona scheme has some value.
IMHO, I don't think we need to match the new Verona scheme for
JVM/TI since it has historically been independent of JDK release
numbers.
As for JNI version numbers, I don't think we've been consistent
about setting the version number to match the current JDK release,
but when we do update it we try to match the current JDK release
that contains the motivating API change...
The Java Language Spec and JVM Spec used to have versions independent of
JDK release numbers. For example, the Third Edition of the JLS
corresponded to JDK 5.0, and the Second Edition of the JVMS corresponded
to JDK 1.3. Suffice to say that this led to a lack of rigor in producing
updates, and maximized confusion for readers. Nowadays these specs are
versioned by the Java SE Platform release that controls their content.
Even if there were no language changes between Java SE n and Java SE
n+1, there would still be a Java language in Java SE n+1, so I would
produce a Java SE n+1 Edition of the JLS.
As JCP-controlled technologies, JNI and JVM/TI are in the same boat as
the Java language and JVM. The clearest thing you can do is adopt the
Java SE Platform number and bump your version with every Platform release.
Alex
