szegedia at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 15:17:46 UTC 2018
Well, thank you for the consideration! I’m pretty happy with this outcome.
> On 2018. Jun 18., at 17:10, Jim Laskey <james.laskey at oracle.com> wrote:
> I think this is an excellent outcome. Thank you Attila.
> I will revise JEP 335 accordingly.
> — Jim
>> On Jun 18, 2018, at 12:07 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>> 2018/6/15 4:40:47 -0700, Attila Szegedi <szegedia at gmail.com>:
>>> On 2018. Jun 12., at 16:55, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>>>> If a set of credible developers expresses a clear desire to maintain
>>>> Nashorn after JDK 11 then all of us who work on this code base will find
>>>> a way to make that happen. Maybe Nashorn stays in the JDK, or maybe it’s
>>>> removed from the JDK and maintained in some other OpenJDK Project and
>>>> published to Maven Central, or maybe some completely different approach
>>>> is taken. Exactly what happens depends, mostly, on who shows up.
>>>> So ... any takers?
>>> I have expressed previously that I am willing to keep maintaining
>>> Dynalink, and that I believe it needs to stay in the JDK in order to
>>> be effective. John Rose seemed to agree in an earlier reply in this
>> As the creator of Dynalink you’re obviously qualified to take this on,
>> so thanks for volunteering! I agree that much of Dynalink’s value rests
>> in its continued availability in the JDK.
>> Jim -- what do you think?
>>> It’d be great if we could conceptually unbundle Dynalink from Nashorn
>>> for the purpose of this discussion. (For historical reasons, its
>>> source code is colocated with Nashorn's, but it can be easily moved
>>> elsewhere and there’s no technical reason for keeping it there.)
>> As Alan noted, Dynalink is already in its own module, so this isn’t an
>> - Mark
More information about the jdk-dev