Difference between revisions of "MOP and Invokedynamic"
From JVMLangSummit
Jump to navigationJump to search (→MOP and Indy) |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== Abstract === | === Abstract === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Metaobject Protocol Meets Invokedynamic — Attila Szegedi | ||
+ | |||
+ | Having a largely stabilized specification and working implementation of JSR-292 opened the way for a rethinking of the JVM Dynamic Languages Metaobject Protocol as a framework for runtime linking of invokedynamic calls between language runtimes. In this talk, I present the architecture of the framework in its current state: the pluggable linker mechanism, the type conversion subsystem, and the set of conventions that build on top of these two to implement a subset of well-known call identifiers that serve as the metaobject protocol nomenclature commonly understood by dynamic languages. | ||
= Background = | = Background = |
Revision as of 09:26, 17 September 2009
Contents
MOP and Indy
Attila Szegedi - Sourceforge.net
- Project
- Blog
- Slides
- File:File.pdf
Abstract
Metaobject Protocol Meets Invokedynamic — Attila Szegedi
Having a largely stabilized specification and working implementation of JSR-292 opened the way for a rethinking of the JVM Dynamic Languages Metaobject Protocol as a framework for runtime linking of invokedynamic calls between language runtimes. In this talk, I present the architecture of the framework in its current state: the pluggable linker mechanism, the type conversion subsystem, and the set of conventions that build on top of these two to implement a subset of well-known call identifiers that serve as the metaobject protocol nomenclature commonly understood by dynamic languages.
Background
Current Status
Future
Key Issues for Discussion
(please expand cooperatively)