VarHandles & LMAX Disruptor

Vitaly Davidovich vitalyd at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 10:34:06 UTC 2015


Paul,

I'd go the other way - leave it out until there's a compelling use case for
it.

sent from my phone
On Jul 29, 2015 4:52 AM, "Paul Sandoz" <paul.sandoz at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> 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:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132471
> >
>
> 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.
>
> Paul.
>


More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list