From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2012-03-06 19:02:14
|
Hi all, Adconion Media group http://www.adconion.com/ has agreed to fund me to produce a Jython 2.7 by July 15. I've looked at the delta between 2.6 and 2.7 and concluded that it is small enough that it would be a better use of time to just skip 2.6 altogether and go straight for 2.7. Does anyone have any objections? I know we had discussed putting out a 2.6 as it would be doable faster, but with this contract opportunity I think 2.7 can be reached at least as quickly as 2.6 could have been without it. -Frank |
From: Alan K. <jyt...@xh...> - 2012-03-06 19:12:36
|
[fwierzbicki] > Adconion Media group http://www.adconion.com/ has agreed to fund me to > produce a Jython 2.7 by July 15. Fantastic news! Congrats! > I've looked at the delta between 2.6 > and 2.7 and concluded that it is small enough that it would be a > better use of time to just skip 2.6 altogether and go straight for > 2.7. Does anyone have any objections? I know we had discussed putting > out a 2.6 as it would be doable faster, but with this contract > opportunity I think 2.7 can be reached at least as quickly as 2.6 > could have been without it. Sounds good to me. Going straight to 2.5 from 2.2 was a good call, I think going from 2.5 to 2.7 will be also, especially since it brings us right up to date with the latest 2.x cpython. Only question I have is: What version of the JVM would be targeted? Would it be 1.7, like we discussed a couple of years back? I think there's lots of good reasons to target Java 1.7. Alan. |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2012-03-06 19:22:35
|
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh...> wrote: > I think there's lots of good reasons to target Java 1.7. Well, Adconion uses Java 1.6 so I should probably stick to that for now - though I think we will almost certainly put out some kind of JDK7 only version soonish - Jim Baker and Shashank Bharadwaj have some really cool invokedynamic work that should appear in a version of Jython in the future. We could even very cautiously consider a 2.8 version - though we'd need to make it very clear that 3.x was the future of Jython if we where to enter that potential minefield :) -Frank |
From: Josh J. <jun...@gm...> - 2012-03-06 19:33:59
|
Congrats Frank, great news! Just as a side-note...sounds like Oracle is going to EOL JDK 6 in November of 2012 per the Java SE EOL Policy. Therefore, if 2.7 goes out with JDK 6 support, perhaps 2.7.x and beyond can gear towards JDK 7. Just a thought. Java SE EOL Policy: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html Josh Juneau jun...@gm... http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866 On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, fwi...@gm... <fwi...@gm... > wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh...> > wrote: > > > I think there's lots of good reasons to target Java 1.7. > Well, Adconion uses Java 1.6 so I should probably stick to that for > now - though I think we will almost certainly put out some kind of > JDK7 only version soonish - Jim Baker and Shashank Bharadwaj have some > really cool invokedynamic work that should appear in a version of > Jython in the future. We could even very cautiously consider a 2.8 > version - though we'd need to make it very clear that 3.x was the > future of Jython if we where to enter that potential minefield :) > > -Frank > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev > |
From: Stefan B. <ste...@be...> - 2012-03-08 17:51:19
|
Josh Juneau, 06.03.2012 20:33: > Congrats Frank, great news! Just as a side-note...sounds like Oracle is > going to EOL JDK 6 in November of 2012 per the Java SE EOL Policy. > Therefore, if 2.7 goes out with JDK 6 support, perhaps 2.7.x and beyond > can gear towards JDK 7. Just a thought. Well, it's not like people would just stop using JDK5 right when JDK6 is taken out of general maintenance. Stefan |
From: Philip J. <pj...@un...> - 2012-03-07 00:51:32
|
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:02 AM, fwi...@gm... wrote: > Hi all, > > Adconion Media group http://www.adconion.com/ has agreed to fund me to > produce a Jython 2.7 by July 15. I've looked at the delta between 2.6 > and 2.7 and concluded that it is small enough that it would be a > better use of time to just skip 2.6 altogether and go straight for > 2.7. Does anyone have any objections? I know we had discussed putting > out a 2.6 as it would be doable faster, but with this contract > opportunity I think 2.7 can be reached at least as quickly as 2.6 > could have been without it. Go for it, the hope that we'd produce a quick 2.6 release hasn't panned out anyway. -- Philip Jenvey |
From: Tal L. <tal...@th...> - 2012-03-07 01:31:24
|
<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bidimailui-detected-decoding-type="latin-charset" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi all,<br> <br> 1) Even if we target JVM 6, Jython would of course still work on JVM 7.<br> <br> 2) The most important JVM 7 feature for Jython would be to make use of the new invokedynamic opcode. I've spent a lot of effort trying to do this for Clojure, and I can tell you that it's far from trivial. We would need to upgrade to ASM 4, and do some painful work in adjusting to JVM 7's enforced class verifiability. I know the Jython codebase very well, and feel that it would require a significant refactoring to do so. There are performance benefits in this, and it's definitely something that should be on the roadmap. The rest of the Java 7 features are mostly syntactic sugar that would not much help Jython, but in fact would unnecessarily limit it to JVM 7 and up.<br> <br> 3) In my opinion there is more benefit in prioritizing getting Jython up-to-date with CPython. It would bring more users and momentum to Jython, and perhaps there would be more community assistance in refactoring for invokedynamic.<br> <br> 4) There are also other benefits in waiting to implement invokedynamic: JVM 8 will be released with Nashorn, a JavaScript engine which will use this opcode, and we can learn from that source code. Also, other projects (JRuby, and Clojure if or others ever get it done) will also have source code that we can learn from.<br> <br> -Tal<br> <br> On 03/06/2012 01:33 PM, Josh Juneau wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:CAHMFmgdr=90C...@ma..." type="cite">Congrats Frank, great news! Just as a side-note...sounds like Oracle is going to EOL JDK 6 in November of 2012 per the Java SE EOL Policy. Therefore, if 2.7 goes out with JDK 6 support, perhaps 2.7.x and beyond can gear towards JDK 7. Just a thought. <div> <br> </div> <div>Java SE EOL Policy: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html">http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html</a></div> <br> </blockquote> </body> </html> |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2012-03-07 04:01:16
|
Oops - I forgot to reply-all - sorry for the double email Tal. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Tal Liron <tal...@th...> wrote: > Hi all, > > 1) Even if we target JVM 6, Jython would of course still work on JVM 7. Yep for the moment JVM 6 is the target - we'll see about Jython3 (I'm tempted to have Jython3 be invokedynamic only - but that's just speculation at this time). > 2) The most important JVM 7 feature for Jython would be to make use of the > new invokedynamic opcode. I've spent a lot of effort trying to do this for > Clojure, and I can tell you that it's far from trivial. We would need to > upgrade to ASM 4, and do some painful work in adjusting to JVM 7's enforced > class verifiability. Can you say more (or give a link) about JVM 7 enforced class verifiability - quick googling didn't turn anything up for me. > I know the Jython codebase very well, and feel that it > would require a significant refactoring to do so. Indeed it will be quite a bit of work - but luckily it's already been started - Jim Baker and Shashank Bharadwaj have been looking into it. > There are performance > benefits in this, and it's definitely something that should be on the > roadmap. The rest of the Java 7 features are mostly syntactic sugar that > would not much help Jython, but in fact would unnecessarily limit it to JVM > 7 and up. I tend to agree - better to stay with JDK 6 until we have a great invokedynamic story. By the way - are you interested in helping out with Jython as you know the Jython codebase well? > 3) In my opinion there is more benefit in prioritizing getting Jython > up-to-date with CPython. It would bring more users and momentum to Jython, > and perhaps there would be more community assistance in refactoring for > invokedynamic. This has been my primary goal for a long while - it will be nice to be up to date with 2.x - but 3.x acceptance is about to turn a corner I think... > 4) There are also other benefits in waiting to implement invokedynamic: JVM > 8 will be released with Nashorn, a JavaScript engine which will use this > opcode, and we can learn from that source code. Also, other projects (JRuby, > and Clojure if or others ever get it done) will also have source code that > we can learn from. The JRuby folks at least have a ton of experience with invokedynamic. I expect we'll look to their work first (though Nashorn should be very interesting too). -Frank |
From: Philip J. <pj...@un...> - 2012-03-07 04:12:53
|
On Mar 6, 2012, at 8:01 PM, fwi...@gm... wrote: >> 4) There are also other benefits in waiting to implement invokedynamic: JVM >> 8 will be released with Nashorn, a JavaScript engine which will use this >> opcode, and we can learn from that source code. Also, other projects (JRuby, >> and Clojure if or others ever get it done) will also have source code that >> we can learn from. > The JRuby folks at least have a ton of experience with invokedynamic. > I expect we'll look to their work first (though Nashorn should be very > interesting too). If the Nashorn code was available.. I guess it might be at some point soon for Java 8. -- Philip Jenvey |
From: <sha...@gm...> - 2012-03-07 04:15:20
|
Hi All, On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:01 PM, fwi...@gm... <fwi...@gm... > wrote: > > > 2) The most important JVM 7 feature for Jython would be to make use of > the > > new invokedynamic opcode. I've spent a lot of effort trying to do this > for > > Clojure, and I can tell you that it's far from trivial. We would need to > > upgrade to ASM 4, and do some painful work in adjusting to JVM 7's > enforced > > class verifiability. > Can you say more (or give a link) about JVM 7 enforced class > verifiability - quick googling didn't turn anything up for me. > Maybe I can pitch in here. I think Tal is talking about the JVM class verifier. Java 7 verifier has stronger than the one from Java 6 and causes a java.lang.VerifyError for code generated by ASM. I encountered this issue a while back after upgrading to ASM4 and I think it's fixed in my branch. -- Shashank Bharadwaj |
From: Tal L. <tal...@th...> - 2012-03-07 04:41:01
|
<html style="direction: ltr;"> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <style>body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style> <style>body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } </style> </head> <body style="direction: ltr;" bidimailui-detected-decoding-type="latin-charset" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <blockquote cite="mid:CAD...@ma..." type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <p wrap="">2) The most important JVM 7 feature for Jython would be to make use of the new invokedynamic opcode. I've spent a lot of effort trying to do this for Clojure, and I can tell you that it's far from trivial. We would need to upgrade to ASM 4, and do some painful work in adjusting to JVM 7's enforced class verifiability. </p> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Can you say more (or give a link) about JVM 7 enforced class verifiability - quick googling didn't turn anything up for me.</pre> </blockquote> See here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/compatibility-417013.html">http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/compatibility-417013.html</a><br> Scroll down to "Verification of Version 51.0 Class Files".<br> <br> If you get this wrong, you get a "VerifyError: Expecting a stackmap frame at branch target". Stackmaps were entirely optional in JVM 6, but no longer in JVM 7. They can go a long way towards making your code more performant (they are essentially hints for HotSpot on where to optimize) but they are so painful to get right that most projects did not bother in the past. ASM can do a lot this for you (it's an amazing tool), but it was quite buggy for me last time I checked (this was before ASM 4.0 was officially released).<br> <blockquote cite="mid:CAD...@ma..." type="cite"> By the way - are you interested in helping out with Jython as you know the Jython codebase well? </blockquote> I'm unfortunately over-extended in my free software commitments right now! However, I'm quietly listening on the mailing list, and may jump in and do some work if I can.<br> <br> Congrats on the move to hg!<br> <br> -Tal<br> <br> </body> </html> |
From: Jeff A. <ja...@fa...> - 2012-03-08 09:14:25
|
Congratulations, and I add my support. Just so others know, I've been working an implementation of bytearray under Frank's guidance. I think what I've done so far would apply equally in 2.7. Just to add my two-pennorth of agreement, I also think JVM 7 and invokevirtual should wait. That looks to me like a huge change in areas of the code base that not many of us could reliably modify. And would it be out of place for a newbie to add a plea? In order to multiply the number of people who could carry Jython into the next generation, would somebody who understands the architecture of Jython please write about it on the Jython wiki? Even if, or perhaps especially if, they don't have time to work on the code themselves. Jeff |
From: Tal L. <tal...@th...> - 2012-03-08 15:05:15
|
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Jeff Allen <ja...py...@fa...> wrote: > > And would it be out of place for a newbie to add a plea? In order to > multiply the number of people who could carry Jython into the next > generation, would somebody who understands the architecture of Jython > please write about it on the Jython wiki? Even if, or perhaps especially > if, they don't have time to work on the code themselves. > > I would furthermore like to see a page about the narrative history of the project: who are the people who did the work, when were certain systems added, and what were some of the motivations for creating them. There's a lot of the architecture that I understand technically, but don't understand the design choices. |