harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sven de Marothy <s...@physto.se>
Subject Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:30:46 GMT
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 06:21 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> That's not fair.  I told you that *I* think that extending java.lang  
> is a *bad idea*.  You many not agree, but that's not the same is  
> NIH.   That doesn't mean that java.lang.VMObject can't be move to  
> another package, preserving the code in it's entirety.  Yes, that's a  
> change for VMs that were [lazily] depending on language semantics to  
> protect those private package extensions, but that's life.

Yes, well the impression I was getting was that the discussion here has
drifted away from the pros and cons of the Classpath VM interface, and
towards ideas of creating your own, or reimplementing java.lang, or even
forking Classpath. 

> Also, I don't know what the 1.4 and 1.5 Java API requirements on the  
> VM are, but given that GNU Classpath isn't there yet, isn't it even  
> plausible that may have something to add?

Yes, 1.5 *will* add new requirements to the VM interface. But the
Classpath VM interface isn't some immutable static thing either. All I'm
saying here is: how about crossing that bridge when you get there,
instead of deciding out of hand that it isn't good enough?

/Sven


Mime
View raw message