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 17:09:57 GMT

On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 06:21 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, well the impression I was getting was that the discussion here  
> has
> drifted away from the pros and cons of the Classpath VM interface, and
> towards ideas of creating your own, or reimplementing java.lang, or  
> even
> forking Classpath.

Fair enough.  But I'd really like to rope this back to the pros and  
cons of the GNU Classpath VM interface.

>
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Yes, 1.5 *will* add new requirements to the VM interface. But the
> Classpath VM interface isn't some immutable static thing either.  
> All I'm
> saying here is: how about crossing that bridge when you get there,
> instead of deciding out of hand that it isn't good enough?

Guess which version of J2SE we want to do...

geir

>
> /Sven
>
>

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



Mime
View raw message