> On 6 Apr 2016, at 15:28, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > > > While i fully agree in the general case, in disagree for this specific > > > case, > > > there are few uses of ARFU inside the JDK (or outside) but currently > > > because BufferedInputStream uses an ARFU, each time someone starts a Java > > > application, the VM loads ARFU and its implementation with a high > > > probability to no need it at all after > > > > > > > Does that really contribute sufficiently to slow down in start time? It > > really seems like a micro-optimisation. > > small streams become big rivers (i don't know the idiomatic sentence in > English, so it's a rough translation from a French idiom), > "Death by a thousand cuts" is one of my favorites :). A "flat profile" is > another description of a similar thing. > I still remain unconvinced in this case that such changes warrant an increase in unsafe usage (temporary or otherwise).
> In general, I agree that easy/cheap/maintainable/etc wins should be done even > if individually they don't matter much (if that were the requirement, there > would be no progress whatsoever). > > In this case, using Unsafe for now seems trivial; when VH is ready, someone > is going to sweep the code anyway and this will be just one more place to > mechanically update. Is VH definitely going to be part of Java 9? If so, > then perhaps no point in making this change unless it's going to be > backported to Java 8. > > Also don't forget that releasing VarHandle API as a public API for 9 is > vastly different from replacing all usages of Unsafe by some VarHandle > methods inside the JDK, see Paul's answser about the bootstrap issues. > VHs are now in jdk9/dev. I dunno when it will rise up to the master and the next EA build. Paul.
