Accessing module internals from bytecode rewriting agent
kirk.pepperdine at gmail.com
Fri May 5 06:44:34 UTC 2017
I think your email points out *why* turning this on out of the blocks is going to make things a ton more difficult. IMHO, 9 needs to be opt-in rather than opt-out. By 10 I think we’ll be ready for opt-out rather than opt-in.
> On May 5, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Jeremy Manson <jeremymanson at google.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Dalibor.
> I know it may sound surprising, but I'm not actually complaining. I do
> understand that most everything we're doing that requires workarounds for
> modules is unsupported (with the possible exception of the changes to
> instrumentation agents), and we were always doing them at our own risk.
> This is far from limited to Xbootclasspath - we have all sorts of hacks,
> including, to pick two things at random among many, code that introspects a
> Thread's Runnable to pick a good name to report for a thread, and code that
> introspects an AbstractInterruptibleChannel to stop the owning thread from
> closing the channel when it gets an interrupt.
> It's our problem to fix these issues, and I'm unlikely to claim otherwise.
> Frankly, it doesn't seem all that difficult to find other ways to
> introspect into the JDK - it's just busywork and more awkward than it used
> to be.
> Mostly, I'm telling you all because I think it makes an interesting case
> study - a large Java installation and the issues it faces trying to roll
> out JDK 9.
> If other installations do the kinds of things that we do, the path to a JDK
> 9 without lots of add-exports and kill switch options is likely to be slow
> and laborious for them. We're comparatively well situated to do it - we
> have our own JDK build and a staffed team to do / help with the migration,
> and are likely to roll it out to everyone with the kill switch turned on by
> default so that our awful hacks can stay put until we finish fixing them.
> (Also, if I were complaining, there would have been a lot of choice things
> I would have said that I'm not going to say. :) )
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:35 AM, dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com>
>> On 02.05.2017 18:46, Jeremy Manson wrote:
>>> are using Xbootclasspath for a variety of things.
>> It's worth keeping in mind when using such options that
>> "Non-standard options are general purpose options that are specific to the
>> Java HotSpot Virtual Machine, so they are not guaranteed to be supported by
>> all JVM implementations, and are subject to change. These options start
>> with -X."
>> dalibor topic
>> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
>> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
>> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
>> practices and products that help protect the environment
More information about the core-libs-dev