Alex Tkachman wrote: >> I have a lot of sympathy for the position that you outline in your >> blog post but I would like to wait for the EDR to be published before >> coming to a settled view on the matter. The devil is in the details >> and I have not seem all the details yet. >> > > I am totally agree. At the end of the day what I say is that API > understanded by JVM is better then a new bytecode because it is > backword compatible :)
Current EDR does not introduce a new bytecode, and prefers to have a "special" interface for invokeinterface as a marker for dynamic invocation. The EDR should be public next week. And although this particular part of the approach would not be back-portable, I'm planning to work with you and John Rose and others to create a backport of the anonymous classloading and method handle APIs. John Rose has also spoken frequently about the importance of solving these issues on older JVMs as well. - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
