harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Renaud BECHADE" <renaud.bech...@numerix.com>
Subject RE: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:13:02 GMT
Nor do I disagree...
I /love/ modularity too.


"Qui ne dit mot consent"
(who tells nothing agrees)

-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:13 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface

Heh.  I agree.  I just was too busy in the VM/class library fire- 
fight :)

So, given that my foray into architecture discussion was such a  
stunning success, would you like to start the discussion of such a  
thing might be approached?  (Please change the subject, of course...)


On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:

> Apparently, only you and I agree.  ;-)
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>> To me, this is the point. I would like to see all of the  
>>> libraries built on to of the JVM to be packaged in a more module- 
>>> like fashion, so that their exports and imports are explicit.  
>>> There would be many benefits if this were done, rather than  
>>> relying on the current approach of assuming that everything is  
>>> accessible.
>> +1
>>> So, from my point of view, it is definitely going in the right  
>>> direction to make libraries understand which class loader they  
>>> should use to get to their own "module's" classes, as opposed to  
>>> just assuming they can get them from any application class loader.
>> +1 to that, too.
>> cheers,
>> dalibor topic

Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message