Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
In-Reply-To: <42924BA5.9070308@Jarnbjo.de>
References: <C64A85F5-45BC-4388-9C4E-91D5542858E6@apache.org>
 <6321D59D-3243-4CFF-90F5-AAE609B5C094@apache.org>
 <42924BA5.9070308@Jarnbjo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <0D53EECC-0567-4AB7-BF72-7B888A60A06D@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [arch] The Third Way : C/C++ and Java and lets go forward
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:43:01 -0400
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org


On May 23, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> (for the record, this isn't about "not doing Java" or "not doing   
>> JikesRVM", but rather my understanding that we'll need a small C/C+ 
>> +  kernel to host the modules, no matter how they are written, and  
>> this  is a way to get that going...)
>>
>
> Excuse me if I'm missing something, but wouldn't it be necessary to  
> implement parts of the VM or the class library in native code anyway?

Yes.

> I'm thinking about code to access e.g. resources like I/O devices,  
> sound etc.? Or is this discussion C vs Java restricted to the  
> bytecode executing part of the VM?

It's never been clear :)

That's the point - that we need the native kernel, and can do the  
rest in C/C++ or Java or both, but hopefully not both - that we can  
divide the work once we have the kernel so things can proceed in  
parallel (or be donated, or use from 3rd party if appropriately  
licensed, etc)

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org