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 09:29:46 GMT

On Jun 3, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:


>>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Lydick <dlydick@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> Dan> That includes the language protection features like Geir's
> Dan> example of package private, which are an interesting game of
> Dan> navigating class file structures with reflection, etc.  I've
> Dan> never tried that, but Geir is right, I think it can be done if
> Dan> you try hard enough.
>
> There are two cases.
>
> In the first case there is no security manager.  All the code is
> trusted.  In this case, yes, using reflection you can work around
> access protections.  In practice I don't see how this matters, as the
> code is already trusted... if it does something weird, well, so what?
> It could also do weird things to your filesystem or anything else.
>
> In the second case, when there is a security manager, then, no, you
> cannot get around the access controls, even with reflection.
>

Why would I have to "get around" the access controls?   I'm the VM. I  
can do magic things, right?  (I should be able to...)


>
> Dan> The underlying idea here is to make as few changes as possible to
> Dan> as little of the java.*, especially java.lang.*, or other core
> Dan> library packages in order to give the Harmony JVM runtime
> Dan> environment the greatest flexibility for using libraries.  Heck,
> Dan> if it's done right, you might be able to use Sun's or IBM's
> Dan> java.* library implementation!
>
> I see where you're coming from, but I don't see how this furthers the
> goal of Harmony, which as I understand it is to have a complete,
> compatible, open J2SE implementation.
>

Yes.  I could believe that there are alternative class library  
implementations that a user might choose to use.  With a clean,  
standard interface, the user should be able to just plug-n-play  
(modulo compatibility certification requirements) both the VM  
implementation and the class library implemetation.


>
> But then, I'm not really getting this part of the discussion.  For
> instance, why does Harmony need a VM layer different from the one
> Classpath provides?  I don't understand that.
>

I'm not sure we don't, other than the bit about extending java.lang,  
which I just personally don't really like.  I understand why it's  
done - to just take advantage of the language protection features -  
but I wonder if there are other ways that are equally as satisfactory  
for the intended purpose.

geir


>
> Tom
>
>
>

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




Mime
View raw message