harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:21:38 GMT

On Jun 4, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:


> On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 21:44 +0200, Santiago Gala wrote:
>
>
>>> So why create flexibility when there aren't
>>> options?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> to enable the development of other options?
>> without arriving to flexibility syndrome, good interfaces enable
>> competing implementations.
>>
>>
>
> If you're going to go off and write your own class library,  
> implementing
> the VM-specific parts is the least of your problems.
>
>
>
>> Your question has exactly the same mindset that Sun people's  
>> comments: "Java is free
>> enough, you have our implementation for free, why do you want another
>> one?" :-)
>>
>>
>
> No, it isn't the same mindset at all, because I can give you a  
> specific
> list of grievances I have with the Sun license. But nobody here  
> seems to
> be able to give list any specific problems with the GNU Classpath VM
> interface other than "It's not ours.".
>

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.

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?

geir


>
> /Sven
>
>
>

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




Mime
View raw message