Valhalla EG minutes 6/21/17
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Wed Jul 19 15:51:35 UTC 2017
> De: "Daniel Heidinga" <Daniel_Heidinga at ca.ibm.com>
> À: "daniel smith" <daniel.smith at oracle.com>
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 19 Juillet 2017 16:31:18
> Objet: Re: Valhalla EG minutes 6/21/17
> There are a couple of different terms that have been used to describe early
> access features - incubator (jep 11), experiment, or optional. At least for me,
> these different terms result in different mental models for how this should
> work for the VM. Hopefully, we're all thinking about the same behaviour
> semantics and are just using different terms but I think it's worth clarifying.
> 1) JEP 11 does a good job of describing incubator and makes it clear that it
> refers to non-standard modules / java-level code. Not VM features.
> 2) An optional feature is something you can chose to implement (or not) but must
> exist as part of the current JVM spec. All of its JVM spec changes would need
> to be in the spec and their enablement / enforcement would depend on whether
> the VM chose to implement that optional feature. Removal of the optional
> feature from the JVM spec would basically be impossible - it may fall into
> disuse through VMs not implementing it, but it would be hard to remove.
> 3) An experimental feature on the other hand, is something that would be allowed
> to have an appendix or set of experimental JVM spec changes that are only
> enabled by command line option + present in classes with new minor classfile
> versions. These features would start life deprecated and expectation is that
> classfiles with this particular minor version would no longer be recognized by
> future VMs when the experimental features graduate to the real JVM features,
> providing freedom to experiment without requiring the VM to carry the support
> burden long term.
> My understanding has been that with the MVT prototype work, we've been aiming
> for the 3rd case. Does this match everyone's expectations? Anyone think we're
> aiming for some other point on the spectrum?
I agree, it's an experimental feature, like invokedynamic was at its time, at least for the MVT.
> One of my fears is that we're going to end up with the VM required to support
> multiple ways of recognizing ValueCapableClasses / ValueTypes, especially if
> there are spec changes between the different ways (think the mess that is
> invokespecial and the ACC_Super flag) based on attribute vs annotation or
> classfile version, etc.
> >> On Jul 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Karen Kinnear <Karen.Kinnear at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> > Dan S: class loading in the proposed JVMS: if you see $Value
> >>> > 1) first derive the VCC name and see if already resolved
> >>> > 2) if not - load the VCC, check properties and derive
> >>> > (ed. note - if see VCC - lazily derive derived value class on touch)
> >>> It's not a requirement that the value class derivation is lazy, correct?
> >> Let’s double-check with Dan Smith at today’s meeting.
> >> The way I read 5.3 Creation and Loading in
>>> [ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/values.html |
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/values.html ]
>>> it appears to allow lazy derivation as well as eager derivation, which I think
> >> is what we both want
> >> since it allows implementations to optimize.
> >> Our current derivation is also eager.
>> Summary of today's discussion, supplemented with some reflection on what I see
> > as the requirements:
>> - The specification shouldn't care when the class is derived (though it must
>> occur, naturally, no later than resolution of "Foo$Value"); the specification
> > *might* care when error checking occurs, because that's observable.
>> - Current specification draft says error checking occurs when Foo$Value is
>> loaded (5.3), and that "Class or interface creation is triggered by another
>> class or interface D, which references C through its run-time constant pool."
>> So, as a test case: if my program has no references to Foo$Value (direct or
> > reflective), no VCC-related errors would occur.
>> - We could redesign this so that the VCC properties are checked during
>> loading/verification of Foo. I am concerned that, where Foo is version 54.0 and
>> has attribute ValueCapableClass, this sort of error checking will violate the
> > Java SE 10 spec.
> Doesn't the use of experimental features allow the new classfile versions to
> define new behaviour? I would expect the ValueCapableClass attribute to b e
> ignored in a v.54 classfile and only take affect in a v.54.1 classfile so that
> the semantics can be changed in the future.
>> Elaborating: we're presenting values as an optional feature of Java SE 10. For a
>> JVM that does not implement the optional feature, JVMS 10 says that a
>> ValueCapableClass attribute on a version 54.0 class file will be ignored. JVMS
>> 4.7.1: "any attribute not defined as part of the class file specification must
>> not affect the semantics of the class file. Java Virtual Machine
>> implementations are required to silently ignore attributes they do not
>> recognize." My interpretation of our mission, in adding an optional feature, is
>> to provide new capabilities while having no impact on existing behavior. We can
>> do new things where JVMS 10 specifies an error; we can't generate new errors
> > where JVMS 10 specifies none.
> New classfile version == new behaviour, right?
>> - We could limit usage/interpretation of "ValueCapableClass" to 54.1 class
>> files. Then eager error checks when loading Foo would be fine. But the ability
> > to work with 54.0 ValueCapableClass class files is an important use case.
> The model here is that using a JVM 10 javac, a classfile with the annotation is
> v54 and on a VM with some -XX:EnableExperimentalFeatures flag, this derives a
> v.54.1 class for the DVT? This basically gives new behavior to v.54 classfiles
> which makes it very hard to change when Java 11 comes along and fully specifies
> ValueTypes. Customers will still have these annotated v.54 classes and expect
> them to keep working as values, meaning the JVMs will need to support both the
> annotation and the new way.
> Limiting the new behaviour to v.54.1 classfiles and then making them illegal in
> Java 11 makes it obvious to the user that the experimental classfiles won't
> work the same way and likely need to be refactored to the new "real" ValueTypes
> Would the annotation be in an incubator module so that it can be deprecated /
> removed easily in a future release?
>> - Actually, examining that use case more closely, we discussed how attributes
>> are not the right tool at all. We want clients of MVT to be able to generate
>> interesting programs using a vanilla Java SE 10 compiler. The best mechanism to
>> communicate "I'm a value-capable class" using a vanilla Java compiler is
> > annotations, not attributes.
> Because we're dealing with experimental features, can we require a similar
> -XX:EnableExperimentalFeatures flag (or -D option) for javac to convert the
> annotation into a v.54.1 classfile with the attribute? This makes it easy to
> write the code but keeps it sandboxed to the experimental classfile version.
> > Tentatively, the spec should be revised so that:
>> - The "ValueCapableClass" attribute no longer exists. Delete changes to 4.7 and
> > delete new section 4.7.25.
>> - A "value capable class" is a class whose RuntimeVisibleAnnotations includes a
>> ValueCapableClass annotation (package TBD; whether the referenced class must be
> > loaded TBD)
> > - As usual, this annotation doesn't impact behavior of class Foo
>> - When loading Foo$Value, as specified in 5.3, we'll check that Foo is a value
> > capable class and that it has the right properties
> > —Dan
> Annotations are typically more expensive to read in the VM than attributes. If
> not for the vanilla-java concerns, a feature like this would have an attribute
> in the JVMS. Shouldn't we try to start with the attribute to keep us close to
> the path we'd pick for a future java release?
More information about the valhalla-spec-observers