harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frederick C Druseikis <fdrusei...@sc.rr.com>
Subject Re: Stop this framework/modularity madness!
Date Tue, 17 May 2005 21:57:59 GMT
On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:58:16 -0300
Rodrigo Kumpera <kumpera@gmail.com> wrote:

> Making Harmony modular enouth to be kind of a JVM framework cannot be
> done before having a working JVM. There is a lot of literature about
> how frameworks should emerge from continuous design and development.


THere are also several JVMs and JIT projects that can provide this current experience.
e.g. Sablevm, jamvm, Jikes RVM, CACAO, gcj/gij  -- the list is rich enough
I have used all but Jikes RVM in the last two weeks against classpath
And there is also the experiences of LLVM, and IKVM even

So, I've got about 5 different builds of classpath on my machine; talk about confusing ! (to
me...)


> 
> This must not be the focus until required, so no JIT plugable layer
> until someone tries to write another JIT for Harmony (emphasis on
> another).

The point, IMHO, is to engage those projects in a constructive way.
Making a framework is constructive.

> 
> Creating such is a big chalenge, to guess what spots need to flexible
> and the others that don't. Guess what, people often make bad guesses
> about these and in the end we have a very complex design with a lot of
> shortcomings.

Like J2EE? :)
This might be a design principle: Harmony shall not be like J2EE

> 
> I believe the focus should be on deciding if Harmony will star from
> other JVM or not.

I think your suggestion could have the effect of putting the Harmony project into a "JVM Beauty
Pageant" business.
Then there are winners and losers.  Yech.,

Making a framework, even though it might be transiently imperfect, finesses the point; and
besides, maybe a framework will allow a JVM that 
might be judged "less beautiful" (ugly?)  today to become much more beautiful tomorrow.

-Fred


Mime
View raw message