Nor do I disagree...
I /love/ modularity too.
RB
"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...)
geir
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
geirm@apache.org
|