Hi Mark, I have a passionate dislike for Unsafe, but I have to agree with Vitaly and Rémi. Until there are alternatives, it makes no sense to add more annoyances.
Regards, Jeroen > -----Original Message----- > From: jigsaw-dev [mailto:jigsaw-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf > Of mark.reinh...@oracle.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 18:12 > To: Vitaly Davidovich > Cc: jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net; adoption-disc...@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Jigsaw Hackday in London - Anything in particular you want > us to look at? > > 2015/6/23 8:45 -0700, vita...@gmail.com: > > Yes, but until all the "safe" replacements are in place and vetted > (e.g. > > performance is on par with Unsafe, same functionality is available, > > etc), I don't see the point of making it even more annoying to grab > > hold of. The people who are using it will continue using it until the > > replacements are available, and this is just going to annoy them. > > That's precisely the point. > > sun.misc.Unsafe and its ilk will go away one day. In preparation for > that, making it a bit harder to use will motivate its current users to > consider whether they really do need to use it -- some do, but some > don't. > > If you absolutely do need it then now is the time to start looking at > the alternatives in development, and contribute to those efforts in > order to make sure that your needs are met. Paul's work on variable > handles (JEP 193 [1]), e.g., is far enough along that feedback would be > useful. > > Making sun.misc.Unsafe harder to use will also help the many users who > unknowingly depend upon this unsupported API, via libraries which do > depend upon it, to become aware of that dependence. They can then > either seek alternatives or ask the maintainers of those libraries to do > so. > > - Mark > > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/193
