harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:09:57 GMT
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 02:20:53PM -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 06:25 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >>On Jun 4, 2005, at 12:59 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
> >>
> >>>AFAIK there are
> >>>no other class libraries out there which you'll legally be able to
> >>>distribute with Harmony. So why create flexibility when there aren't
> >>>options?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are you kidding?  There aren't options *now* (well, that's not really
> >>true, is it...),
> >>
> >
> >Could you elaborate on that? I don't know of any class library
> >distributable under the Apache license.
> 
> There are other licenses.  Remember, we aren't only concerned about  
> ourselves, but what a downstream user of our stuff will want to do.  
> We tend to try to protect their freedoms as well.  (See "Ulcer,  
> Geir's, re J2EE TCK license")

Could you elaborate on those things? You sound as if there is some
option for downstream users on your mind, but you are not coming out
with it, and it is not very clear what it is from guessing what you
might be thinking of ;)

> >
> >
> >>but that doesn't meant that options won't come
> >>around in the future.  I think we're still in the very beginning of
> >>"managed runtime environments" and generalization w/o penalty is a
> >>Good Thing(tm).
> >>
> >
> >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?  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.

I beliee the confusion exists because someone else suggested reimplementing
all of java.lang with a rather odd justification, to be able to mix in
SCSLd code, that is not practicable nor legally possible to distribute ;)

Your argumentation jumped right into the middle of that and that may
have lead people to assume wrong things. Maybe you should simply start a
new thread, present a use case, show what breaks, and we can analyze it.
Hunting things down in this long htread seems to be very confusing for
everyone.

> >
> >Again, this is NOT a major issue. *If* or *when* these options become
> >available, *that* will be the time to adress this. It is not such a
> >major task as folks seem to think here to change the VM-classlib
> >interface. Indeed it has been done already for VMs such as JikesRVM.
> 
> 
> 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...

Given that no such options exist, it is not possible to make any
ammendments for them right now, right, as noone knws what ammendments
they would need? ;)

What are the options on your mind? Could you give us some nice scenarios, name some
names, to see what motivates the discussion and how we can fix the the
problems in the VM interface for those users and/or clear up any
misconceptions about it.

cheers,
dalbor topic


> >
> >Reimplementing java.lang is more work.
> 
> See above - I think there is a miscommunication here
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >>And maybe we have more to learn in this area from other
> >>implementations and newer Java APIs.
> >>
> >
> >I don't like "maybe"s. I like specific problems for which I can devise
> >specific solutions.
> 
> Me too, and I'm hoping someone who has done this will point out some  
> specific problems they needed to solve.
> 
> >
> >Maybe Java 1.6 will require VMs to be able to make breakfast;  
> >Should we
> >start designing a VM-toaster interface, just in case?
> 
> As long as you don't put it in java.lang, I'm all for it...  :)
> 
> But before we go leaping off to 1.6, how about 1.5?
> 
> >
> >
> >>>Why would you want to have a Free VM which can use non-free  
> >>>libraries?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>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.
> 
> >
> >2) Because people who have Sun's class library already have Sun's VM.
> >What would they want with Harmony for?
> 
> Ya never know :)
> 
> >
> >3) Because I thought the main idea was a complete VM under the Apache
> >license. Not ASL+SCSL.
> 
> 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?
> 
> geir
> 
> -- 
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message