VarHandles & LMAX Disruptor
kirk.pepperdine at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 10:19:51 UTC 2015
On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Christoph Engelbert <chris at hazelcast.com> wrote:
>> Am 29.07.2015 um 11:53 schrieb Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com>:
>> On 29 Jul 2015, at 00:03, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/29/2015 12:53 AM, Michael Barker wrote:
>>>> I definitely want all of the explicitly named accessor methods, as the the
>>>> "naked" get/set with the defaulting behaviour I'm indifferent.
>>> Almost there:
>> Thanks!, pushed.
>> I am marginally in favour of the keeping the default accessors. FWIW they have parity with method handle field setters/getters (and of course get/putfield).
>> Vitaly, i think it’s ok to experiment. We can easily remove the default accessors if we eventually conclude these are more of a nuisance.
> Not sure I agree, it feels a bit like API smell to have both versions. but yeah they can be removed at any point in time.
Without a backward compatibility issues?
At any rate, I always vote for readability so this is a welcome change. FWIW, there is quite a bit of JDK code that would not pass our internal code reviews based on this point.
More information about the valhalla-dev