A few years ago I had a brief email exchange with Doug Lea I the idea of providing an SPI so platforms could plug in implementations for a "default" ExecutorService. The idea was this could be a regular fixed thread pool or something more exotic like libdispatch, which is, after all OS managed and supposedly plays nicely with power management etc.
I didn't take the idea any further, but something similar cropped up when lamdas were added in Java 8, the idea of a default mechanism for parallel lambda execution. I still think there's a good idea in there. The notion of a default thread pool that could be backed by more native code on various platforms. But that whole infrastructure would need to be created. It's more like a JEP. If that were to exist then the Dispatch class would be a natural way to implement on OS X. Andrew > On May 19, 2015, at 8:01 PM, Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Apple's JDK 6 provided the non-standard "com.apple.concurrent.Dispatch" class > which was a means for Java code to access Apple's "libdispatch". > To quote the documentation at > http://www.coderanch.com/how-to/javadoc/appledoc/api/com/apple/concurrent/Dispatch.html > > " Factory for |Executor|s and |ExecutorService|s backed by libdispatch. > Access is controlled through the Dispatch.getInstance() method, > because performed tasks occur on threads owned by libdispatch" > > The class carried over into Oracle JDK for OS X and is there all the way up > to current JDk 9 dev builds. > > The question is what to do with this class in the 'modular JDK' where > we need to decide on the 'supportedness' of many APIs and what > to do with them as a result. > > There is one Eclipse bug from 2010 where one of the methods was > added to support embedding SWT in AWT applets in the browser : > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303869 > > but that was for JDK 6 and SWT can't be embedded in the current JDK 7/8/9 > Java Plugin for OS X which runs out of process .. so that usage is moot. > > So the current thinking is that since we do not know of anyone who > uses this class that it should be unsupported in JDK 9 and not > visible in the modular JDK image. > > So .. any comments ? > > -phil. > > > > >
