On 2/02/2013 9:03 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com
<mailto:philip.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
As previously discussed on porters-dev the current target is not the first
JDK 8 release but rather the first non-security update (i.e.
something like JDK 8u2)
Given the scale and timing, isn't JDK 9 a more appropriate target ?
The goal of a JDK 8 update 2, *should* be stabilisation, and this
sounds rather the opposite.
It also introduces logistic issues like ramping up infrastructure
which in my experience can't solved all that quickly.
Well, the MacOS X port made it into 7u4 and we're of course keen to do
it better:)
That's probably not likely. The first update is generally intended to be
a stabilization update (bug fixes only) as 7u2 was. So 8u4 seems the
more likely target. Certainly I would like to see this come about well
before Java 9 though.
That said the simple logistics of repository management means the
integration may not be able to start for some time. Until there is a
forked forest where these changes can be integrated without affecting
earlier updates (unduly) then it can't start. Historically that would
not happen until after 8u2 has been frozen, but that might not leave
enough time till 8u4. There may be some changes needed to how the 8u
project is setup and handled. And I guess the 8u project needs to come
into existence first as well.
I think the "risks" are a little under-stated. You have changed shared
code and that potentially impacts all platforms (unless you have only
added new functions unused on existing platforms?). There is also the
matter of the "elephant in the room" - the existing proprietary PPC port
that Oracle has for Java SE Embedded. Someone (from Oracle of course)
will have to see how the proposed structure of the new port will impact
the existing closed port. It might be a non-issue, or a major issue -
most likely somewhere in between.
I am also hoping that this will not simply be a copy'n'modify port as we
have seen in the past. The proliferation of platform ifdefs in shared
code is truly horrendous; as is the duplication across the purportedly
platform-specific code. This problem wasn't addressed for the Mac port
but in my opinion (and that is all it is) it needs to be before the
community accepts any further ports.
I'd also like to understand the proposed maintenance model going
forward. We (in Oracle) already have to accommodate our closed ports
when they are affected by changes to common code that requires
per-platform changes as well. Who will be providing the changes needed
for aix-ppc? And how will that happen?
Again I think the big picture issues need to discussed on jdk8-dev (or
perhaps it is time to start jdk8u-dev?) before getting into changeset
specifics for hotspot and core-libs.
Thanks,
David
-----
What do you mean with "ramping up infrastructure":
- hardware resources (like test/build infrastructure)?
- human resources within Oracle?
- human resources within IBM/SAP?
I think we have most of these allocated (except the Oracle part which I
can not speak about:)
-phil.
On 2/1/2013 5:57 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM, David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>__wrote:
On 1/02/2013 8:11 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com
<mailto:mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote:
Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/*__*175
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/**175><http://openjdk.java.net/__jeps/175
<http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/175>>
I'm forced to send this to porters-dev but I do not
subscribe to that list
(so it will probably get held up).
Given the way the JEP tasks have been split it would seem
much more
appropriate to me for discussions to occur on hotspot-dev
and core-libs-dev
as this, as the JEP says, is about the integration effort
not the porting
effort.
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to wait until the JEP was published
before
posting it to the appropriate lists
That said this is also relevant to jdk8-dev, also cc'd, as
it affects all
JDK 8 development. I have trouble seeing how such a large
effort can be
assimilated within the timeframes of the Java 8 schedule.
As previously discussed on porters-dev the current target is not
the first
JDK 8 release but rather the first non-security update (i.e.
something like
JDK 8u2)
Regards,
Volker
David
- Mark
