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 19:17:38 GMT
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 14:20 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Reimplementing java.lang certainly is a penalty.
> 
> I don't understand - I might have misstated something.  Why do you  
> think I want to re-implement java.lang?  

No, I can't speak for you. But it's been suggested on this list.

> Any JVM that uses GNU Classpath has to implement java.lang parts, right?  
> All I'm suggesting that we move the stuff that's not standard java.lang as  
> defined in a spec somewhere off to another package name.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

> Why not do it now so we don't have to fix it later, since to do J2SE  
> 5 we *are* going to have to modify it...

Because I'm doubtful that we'll be able to produce a good specification
without anyone having done at least one implementation.


> But before we go leaping off to 1.6, how about 1.5?

And perhaps support 1.4 before that? I'd say wait until you get full 1.4
before worrying about 1.5.

> >> why not?  Why restrict that freedom for users?
> >>
> >
> > 1) Because Sun hasn't documented their VM interface.
> 
> We don't care, do we?  We can do our own.

Ok. But then you won't be able to use Sun's class library. Which I
believed was the point here?

> Remember the modularity goal - we want people to be able to take this  
> stuff and plug-n-play with whatever they want.  If for whatever  
> reason they wanted to plug in Sun's class library, why would we want  
> to prevent that?

I don't see any reason for wanting to prevent that. But I don't see why
you should go out of your way to enable it, if it means implementing
undocumented proprietary interfaces. And it does.

/Sven


Mime
View raw message