Re: Avoiding sun.misc.Unsafe and embracing modules in Java libraries: missing links

Yes, of course. This was merely a proof of concept to show that it works. 2018-04-13 8:48 GMT+02:00 Peter Levart : > > > On 04/12/18 10:40, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 11/04/2018 21:07, Rafael Winterhalter wrote: > > I do not think that this is possible. If the module

Re: RFR: 8187490: HotSpotRuntimeMBean should be moved to Graal management module

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 15:59, David Holmes wrote: > > On 13/04/2018 5:12 PM, Doug Simon wrote: >>> On 13 Apr 2018, at 07:15, David Holmes wrote: >>> >>> Hi Doug, >>> >>> Not a review. :) Just wondering what HotSpotRuntimeMBean has to do with

Re: RFR: 8187490: HotSpotRuntimeMBean should be moved to Graal management module

On 13/04/2018 5:12 PM, Doug Simon wrote: On 13 Apr 2018, at 07:15, David Holmes wrote: Hi Doug, Not a review. :) Just wondering what HotSpotRuntimeMBean has to do with this ??? These are the non-Graal code base changes needed to move the bean out of the

Re: Provides clauses in binary module descriptor but not in source

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 14:33, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 13/04/2018 13:16, Doug Simon wrote: >> I just noticed that in the jdk.internal.vm.compiler module descriptor source >> there is a `uses` clause for CompilerConfigurationFactory[1] but no >> `provides` clause for

Re: Provides clauses in binary module descriptor but not in source

On 13/04/2018 13:16, Doug Simon wrote: I just noticed that in the jdk.internal.vm.compiler module descriptor source there is a `uses` clause for CompilerConfigurationFactory[1] but no `provides` clause for the CoreCompilerConfigurationFactory provider[2] which is in the same module. However,

Provides clauses in binary module descriptor but not in source

I just noticed that in the jdk.internal.vm.compiler module descriptor source there is a `uses` clause for CompilerConfigurationFactory[1] but no `provides` clause for the CoreCompilerConfigurationFactory provider[2] which is in the same module. However, `java -d jdk.internal.vm.compiler | grep

Re: RFR: 8187490: HotSpotRuntimeMBean should be moved to Graal management module

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 07:15, David Holmes wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > Not a review. :) Just wondering what HotSpotRuntimeMBean has to do with this > ??? These are the non-Graal code base changes needed to move the bean out of the jdk.internal.vm.compiler module. The

Re: Avoiding sun.misc.Unsafe and embracing modules in Java libraries: missing links

On 04/12/18 10:40, Alan Bateman wrote: On 11/04/2018 21:07, Rafael Winterhalter wrote: I do not think that this is possible. If the module containing the interface does not open a package, I cannot change the privileges of the main module such that I can resolve a method handle for invoking

Re: RFR: 8187490: HotSpotRuntimeMBean should be moved to Graal management module

On 12/04/2018 19:24, Doug Simon wrote: Please review this change that removes the existing Graal service provider for hooking into the Platform MBean Server and makes jdk.internal.vm.compiler.management an upgradeable module. Please refer to