invokedynamic: Is It What We Really Need? - JVM Languages

Message from discussion invokedynamic: Is It What We Really Need?

Charles Oliver Nutter

More options May 9, 2:18 pm

From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nut...@sun.com>

Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 11:18:00 -0700

Subject: Re: [jvm-l] Re: invokedynamic: Is It What We Really Need?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Alex Tkachman wrote:
>> I have a lot of sympathy for the position that you outline in your
>> blog post but I would like to wait for the EDR to be published before
>> coming to a settled view on the matter. The devil is in the details
>> and I have not seem all the details yet.

> I am totally agree. At the end of the day what I say is that API
> understanded by JVM is better then a new bytecode because it is
> backword compatible :)

Current EDR does not introduce a new bytecode, and prefers to have a
"special" interface for invokeinterface as a marker for dynamic
invocation. The EDR should be public next week.

And although this particular part of the approach would not be
back-portable, I'm planning to work with you and John Rose and others to
create a backport of the anonymous classloading and method handle APIs.
John Rose has also spoken frequently about the importance of solving
these issues on older JVMs as well.

- Charlie

Reply to author Forward