harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodrigo Kumpera <kump...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [arch] The Third Way : C/C++ and Java and lets go forward
Date Mon, 23 May 2005 17:32:50 GMT
I still think a java-in-java solution is the way to go. All components can 
be tested from a JVM until it can hosts itself. The only reason for using 
C/C++ is with a vm as seed.
 If the objective is to write a high performance JVM, having a vm with an 
interpreter doesn't help much.
 Starting with java, it's more propable that we can have a nice 
non-optimizing JIT and runtime by the same time the C/C++ effort have a 
working baseline compiler.
 jikesRVM cannot be licensed under the ASL, but what about MMtk? 

 On 5/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@apache.org> wrote: 
> I'd like to formally propose what I think many have been thinking and
> maybe have already suggested - that we'll need to combine both C/C++
> and Java in this effort. After thinking about it, I don't really
> see upside to having two parallel tracks, when in fact we can and
> should be working together.
> So, to do that :
> I. [VM Kernel] Start with a core 'kernel' in C/C++ that provides
> intrinsics needed by the other modules.
> II. [Modular VM Architecture] Clearly define the other modules,
> what intrinsics they need from the core kernel, and what
> relationships they have to other modules
> III. [VM<->Class library Interface] Begin seriously examining the GNU
> Classpath VM interface, iteratively producing a "Common Classlibrary
> Interface" that we can ask GNU Classpath to implement. Right now,
> they have a VM interface that is a great starting point, but I get
> the impression that there is a whole suite of intrinsic VM
> functionality that should be standardized and exposed to the class
> library by the VM.
> To do this I'd like to
> a) Respectfully petition JamVM for a one-time license grant of the
> codebase under the Apache License that we can start with. We would
> use this as our base kernel, refactoring out the modules that we
> decide on in II above, and working to implement those modules in
> whatever makes sense - Java or C. Robert brought up this issue on
> the list, so I have responded w/ a request on this list.
> b) Consider starting a second mail list "harmony-arch", for
> modularity discussions, to separate out the traffic from the dev
> traffic.
> Lets get moving. Comments?
> geir
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message