8139891: Prepare Unsafe for true encapsulation
aph at redhat.com
Fri Oct 23 09:14:49 UTC 2015
On 22/10/15 15:48, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
> I don’t like to say it but it sounds very wrong to have another
> Unsafe like thinggy in the future instead of providing public
> alternatives right from the start. I agree it might be a faster to
> just write adapter classes and I really don’t like to repeat what I
> said in the past but why should Oracle be able to write fast Java
> code than the public? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
There is a basic entitlement that anyone, within or outside Oracle,
who wants to write a Java API should be able to prototype and test it
on existing systems. For that to work it must be possible to enable
the use of Unsafe, and this will require a command-line option.
I have discussed this at some length with Oracle representatives, and
it has also been discussed by the JCP Executive. We have been assured
by Oracle that this will be possible. I am sure that the core library
developers are aware of this and would do nothing to prevent it.
More information about the core-libs-dev