IssueRaiser

The quote stops short, and for someone like me who doesn't follow Java very much, it feels like it's misquoting via omission: "Let me be...

The quote stops short, and for someone like me who doesn't follow Java very much, it feels like it's misquoting via omission: "Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire. It is -- wait for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and start the path to righteousness _ /now/ _. It is still years until the end of public updates to JDK 8, so we have / years /to work this out properly. But sticking our heads in the collective sands and hoping for trivial work arounds to Unsafe is not going to work. If you're using Unsafe, this is the year to explain where the API is broken and get it straight.... "Please help us kill Unsafe, kill Unsafe dead, kill Unsafe right, and do so as quickly as possible to the ultimate benefit of everyone." The quoted engineer understands that people use it, claims that there's no immediate risk (since Java 8 will stay around), and very very strongly implies that there is a plan to move from Unsafe to something better than Unsafe providing equivalent functionality in a stable way, and asks for help with that. Is this correct?

Posted by geofft on Jul 13, 2015, 3:26 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,500 issues0 comments

reliability (Other)

The quote stops short, and for someone like me who doesn't follow Java very much, it feels like it's misquoting via omission: "Let me be...

geofftJul 13, 2015, 3:26 PM

The quote stops short, and for someone like me who doesn't follow Java very much, it feels like it's misquoting via omission: "Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire. It is -- wait for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and start the path to righteousness _ /now/ _. It is still years until the end of public updates to JDK 8, so we have / years /to work this out properly. But sticking our heads in the collective sands and hoping for trivial work arounds to Unsafe is not going to work. If you're using Unsafe, this is the year to explain where the API is broken and get it straight.... "Please help us kill Unsafe, kill Unsafe dead, kill Unsafe right, and do so as quickly as possible to the ultimate benefit of everyone." The quoted engineer understands that people use it, claims that there's no immediate risk (since Java 8 will stay around), and very very strongly implies that there is a plan to move from Unsafe to something better than Unsafe providing equivalent functionality in a stable way, and asks for help with that. Is this correct?

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue