harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kev Jackson <kevin.jack...@it.fts-vn.com>
Subject Re: Backward compatibility
Date Thu, 12 May 2005 03:06:22 GMT

>* The complete agreement and compatiblity of the rules set down by TCK was 
>one of the major factors that ensured that we would be 100% Java as it is by 
>Sun
>
>  
>
Yep agreed, if we were going to create a 90% but not deprecated code, we 
couldn't say that it was Java, and what would be the point of that?

>* As a very learned person who clearly was authority on the subject aldready 
>pointed out some Sun methods do indeed invoke these deprecated methods and 
>when they are deprecated and when not does indeed fluctuate. And if we are 
>making something should we *compromise* on quality of anything that we 
>produce ?
>  
>
Yes getting stuff released is a matter of compromise.  If you ask Sun 
engineers do they believe that everything in Java5 is perfect?  Nope, 
but they released it anyway.  Open source is in the fantastic position 
of being able to refactor infinitely and to be able to constantly 
improve code - something commercial software usually doesn't have time 
to do.

Being pragmatic allows you to get a working version released, being 
idealistic "everything must be designed perfectly before we start 
writing code" only works in Utopia, ie nowhere.  I firmly believe that 
the scale of this project will initially require some sort of 
compromises to be made, so long as these are not fundamentally limiting 
(and is an unoptimized implementation of deprecated code limiting?), 
then they can be changed later when there are free developers with time 
on their hands.  Also ask yourself as a developer, do you want to spend 
your time working on the boring deprecated parts of the code?  It's a 
burden someone will have to do to get the TCK to pass, but I doubt there 
will be many volunteers to code these bits - and the ones who do 
volunteer will be respected for the odiousness of teh task that they 
have volunteered for.

This isn't to refute your point that we should make a sub-standard 
product, just that parts of the product are more important (deliver more 
business value to customer) and should be concentrated on first.  As a 
n00b on this list, I'm aware that most of what I'm writing could be 
regurgitating previously discussed stuff, and I'm also not claiming to 
be a VM engineer or someone with prior GC/JIT development experience, 
just as someone who's seen the "design first"/idealistic model crash and 
burn on too many occasions.

Kev

Mime
View raw message