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: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Fri, 13 May 2005 04:34:22 GMT

>Write code of what ? Based on what ? 
>
>Nothing has been decided ! After all this still a proposal right ? This can 
>be rejected too :)
>  
>
>  
>
My point exactly, nothing has been decided, perhaps it's time to make 
some decisions

>The thing is how much later into the project will the change be decided ? 
>
>What if the change we make due too Poor Planning (with two capital P's) 
>cause the entire work or majority of it till then to be discarded ?
>
>  
>
Change isn't a bad thing.   I think that the proposal is fairly clear, 
but the approach to take is currently unclear, hence all the noise on 
the mailing list (of which I'm especially guilty)
 >>

2) create a community-developed modular runtime (VM and class library)
   architecture to allow independent implementations to share runtime
   components, and allow independent innovation in runtime components

<<

I read this as build a better VM than HotSpot under the APL, *and* write 
the class libraries.  I don't read this as take kaffe or JRVM or any 
other product and slap an Apache sticker and go faster stripes on it.  
The proposal seems to be clear about writing from scratch if it isn't 
then my bad.

>Apache votes arent done by the developers it is done by the committe (or am 
>i wrong)
>
>  
>
AFAIK wrong, at least on the other Apache projects I've worked on, 
anyone can make a proposal, and developers can vote, but the committers 
have veto status (correct me if I'm wrong on this).

>Write a crude VM first, from scratch, using other VM's as guidance, but
>  
>
>>not incorporating code from other projects to avoid licensing issues.
>>Yes []
>>No []
>>
>>At least we can see what's happening
>>
>>    
>>
>
>No ?
>
>
>  
>
Ok, at least it's a start ;)

Mime
View raw message