JNI and JVM TI version numbers
Daniel D. Daugherty
daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Thu Jan 7 14:47:47 UTC 2016
On 1/7/16 6:27 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 05/01/2016 23:34, Iris Clark wrote:
>> Hi, Alan.
>> JNI and JVM TI version numbers weren’t considered.
>> Updating the JNI version to drop the "1" similar to what we've done
>> for other parts of the system seems like an obvious change we should
>> I'll propose text for the JEP.
> In Dan Daugherty's mail then he notes that the JNI version was updated
> in Java SE 1.2, 1.4, 6 and 8. So one thing that would be useful to
> capture somewhere is whether the policy of not rev'ing it when there
> aren't any additions/changes should continue. So for example, suppose
> we don't touch JNI in Java SE 10 then would we we add JNI_VERSION_10
> or not?
>> I assume that you'll handle the necessary code and other JNI spec
>> updates for this change similar to the JDK 8 change in 8005716.
> Yes, we have a bug tracking it and I think Harold is going to get it
> into JDK 9 in advance of our additions.
>> I really like the idea of aligning the JVM TI version number,
>> particularly since we need to update it anyway; however, I cannot
>> properly judge the impact. If it's no greater than what we've
>> observed for the system properties, then we should do it now.
>> If you and other JVM TI experts believe it is reasonable to update
>> this version number, I'll take care of the JEP addition. (It looks
>> like it was changed to the present value in JDK 8 bug 8014135.)
> I like the idea of just doing this too but it's not critical. I see
> Dan's reply where he doesn't think we should but this is based on JVM
> TI being independent, something it realistically hasn't been for many
Just an opinion. I don't have a strong preference either way.
> Maybe it should be left as an open issue in the JEP until there is
> more input on this? We can start a discussion on serviceability-dev.
Getting the current Serviceability team's input would be good.
More information about the verona-dev