Emily and Ondro, thanks for pointing out there is a third option here to have the behavior be unspecified when virtual=true is used on Java SE 17. That would leave it up to the vendor whether to raise an error
or ignore the virtual=true value and/or issue a warning. It would also require the TCK to avoid attempting to deploy all test applications where virtual=true is used when running on Java SE 17. I discussed this with Kyle who pointed out that is current possibly
to be running the TCK test client from a Java level that is different from the Java level of the Jakarta EE product being tested, making it impossible for the TCK to accurately determine whether or not it ought to attempt deployment of test applications with
virtual=true. To address that, we would need to add a new requirement to the TCK that both must run on the same Java SE level.
I’ll post this comment to the pull request as well where this is also being discussed.
From:
cu-dev <cu-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Emily Jiang via cu-dev <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:51 AM
To: cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cu-dev] Behavior of virtual=true on Java SE 17
I am with Ondro on this (see here). I think using unspecified behavior might be a better option as the value is still valid but the JVM cannot fulfil the task.
Even in JVM 21, the app might not get a VT even though the app asks for a VT. EmilyOn
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
I am with Ondro on this (see here). I think using unspecified behavior might be a better option as the value is still valid but the JVM cannot fulfil the task. Even in JVM 21, the app might not get a VT even though the app asks for a VT.
Ivar,
That’s an interesting idea.
> Would it be possible to provide a warning of some kind both at compile time and runtime for Option 2?
At run time, yes. The spec could require implementations to log a warning at run time when seeing the annotation. I think that would be a good idea
if going with Option 2.
At compile time, even if there were a way to cause a warning at compile time, it would be wrong to do so because it is a valid scenario to compile
your application with Java SE 17 but run it on Java SE 21. Users should not have to receive a warning for that.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9: 09 AM Nathan Rauh via cu-dev <cu-dev@ eclipse. org> wrote: If anyone else has an opinion on what the behavior
of virtual=true should be when running on Java SE 17, please comment in https: //github. com/jakartaee/concurrency/pull/415
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
If anyone else has an opinion on what the behavior of virtual=true should be when running on Java SE 17, please comment in
https://github.com/jakartaee/concurrency/pull/415
The options being considered are:
-
It’s an error because Java SE 17 can’t possibly ever honor your request to use virtual threads.
-
Ignore your request for a virtual thread on Java SE 17 and use a platform thread instead.
Would it be possible to provide a warning of some kind both at compile time and runtime for Option 2?
I’ll leave this open for several more days, but I’d like to get a decision made one way or the other so that we can make progress on supporting Java
SE 17 which is now being required by the Jakarta platform.
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
--
Ivar Grimstad
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate |
Eclipse Foundation
Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code.
Collaboration.
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
--
|
