Re: Value types - compatibility with existing “value objects”

Palo Marton palo.marton at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 16:37:49 UTC 2015


Yes, I know about that proposal. But my main idea is not to fix string
class, but to improve compatibility between post-VT and pre-VT code. String
was used just as an example of existing value class.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Richard Warburton <
richard.warburton at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think its also worth noting that your request to make String faster by
> removing the pointer indirection on its char array is a problem which is
> ideally suited to the Object Layout proposal (http://objectlayout.org/).
> This proposal doesn't add value types to the JVM, but simply gives more
> control over the member layout of existing Objects and is thus
> significantly narrower in scope. It consequently doesn't have the migration
> compatibility issues outlined on this list. Object Layout and value types
> aren't mutually exclusive.
>
> regards,
>
>   Richard Warburton
>
>   http://insightfullogic.com
>   @RichardWarburto <http://twitter.com/richardwarburto>
>


More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list