D'oh! I'll take that as an indication we want to flush "dyn" from our symbol
tables ASAP.
Yes, the new package name is java.lang.invoke.
-- John
On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Jim Laskey wrote:
> java.dyn.invoke => java.lang.invoke
>
> On 2011-03-28, at 5:02 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
>> OpenJDK
On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Jim Laskey wrote:
> java.dyn.invoke => java.lang.invoke
>
> On 2011-03-28, at 5:02 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
>> OpenJDK b135 has JVM support for the new package name java.dyn.invoke...
>
D'oh! I'll take that as an indication we want to flush "dyn" from our symbol
t
On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Mark Roos wrote:
> Where will the anonymousClassLoader end up?
In sun.invoke.anon. (Was sun.dyn.anon.) -- John___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
I am ready to make the change myself, go for it.
Where will the anonymousClassLoader end up?
mark
From:
John Rose
To:
Da Vinci Machine Project
Date:
03/28/2011 01:03 PM
Subject:
the fate of java.dyn
Sent by:
mlvm-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net
OpenJDK b135 has JVM support for the new packag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Totally agree. Let's just get rid of it as quickly as possible.
(what's the status on the BSD builds, btw?)
Cheers
On 2011-03-28 15.58, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:5
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Ben Evans
wrote:
> I say get rid of vestigial packages / names as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, John Rose wrote:
>>
>> OpenJDK b135 has JVM support for the new package
I say get rid of vestigial packages / names as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Ben
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, John Rose wrote:
> OpenJDK b135 has JVM support for the new package name java.dyn.invoke, and
> therefore the new API names can be used with a b135 JVM plus a suitable
> -Xbootclasspat
