Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread John Rose
On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Remi Forax wrote: > please the name 'locked object' should be changed, > first because the fact that the value object uses bits also used to bias > a lock > is just an implementation detail and the name is too close to > synchronized/j.u.c.l.Lock. > > why not steady

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread BGB
On 11/7/2012 7:02 PM, Remi Forax wrote: > On 11/07/2012 11:30 PM, BGB wrote: >> On 11/7/2012 4:15 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Nice to see this effort moving forward. While reading the JEP, I >>> can't help but think how complicated this sounds for JVM >>> implementors. Is in

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread Jim Laskey
+1 On 2012-11-07, at 9:16 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: > How about frozen? > > Sent from my phone > > On Nov 7, 2012 8:15 PM, "Remi Forax" wrote: > On 11/07/2012 10:35 PM, John Rose wrote: > > Thanks! This will move the conversation forward. > > > > -- John (on my iPhone) > > John, Mark, >

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread Vitaly Davidovich
How about frozen? Sent from my phone On Nov 7, 2012 8:15 PM, "Remi Forax" wrote: > On 11/07/2012 10:35 PM, John Rose wrote: > > Thanks! This will move the conversation forward. > > > > -- John (on my iPhone) > > John, Mark, > please the name 'locked object' should be changed, > first because t

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread Remi Forax
On 11/07/2012 10:35 PM, John Rose wrote: > Thanks! This will move the conversation forward. > > -- John (on my iPhone) John, Mark, please the name 'locked object' should be changed, first because the fact that the value object uses bits also used to bias a lock is just an implementation detail

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread Remi Forax
On 11/07/2012 11:30 PM, BGB wrote: > On 11/7/2012 4:15 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> >> Nice to see this effort moving forward. While reading the JEP, I >> can't help but think how complicated this sounds for JVM >> implementors. Is introducing bytecodes and new value type >>

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread BGB
On 11/7/2012 4:15 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: Hi John, Nice to see this effort moving forward. While reading the JEP, I can't help but think how complicated this sounds for JVM implementors. Is introducing bytecodes and new value type representation definitely a nonstarter? I'm thinking a

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread Vitaly Davidovich
Hi John, Nice to see this effort moving forward. While reading the JEP, I can't help but think how complicated this sounds for JVM implementors. Is introducing bytecodes and new value type representation definitely a nonstarter? I'm thinking a setup akin to the CLR. I certainly understand the a

Re: JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread John Rose
Thanks! This will move the conversation forward. -- John (on my iPhone) On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/169 > > - Mark ___ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mai

JEP 169: Value Objects

2012-11-07 Thread mark . reinhold
Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/169 - Mark ___ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

Re: nice blog post on Majik

2012-11-07 Thread Marrows, George A (GE Energy)
> Some of you may remember reading posts from Duncan MacGregor or seeing > the talk on GE's Majik system at this year's JVM Language Summit. > > There's a new Oracle blog entry on their work here: > > https://blogs.oracle.com/jtc/entry/sprinkle_some_magik_on_that > > It includes a rehearsal of b