harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Lydick" <dlyd...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT


> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Edworthy <peter@edworthy.org>
> To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: 6/10/05 8:23:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface
>
...snip...
> 
> I don't like changes in Java.Lang, although I know they should be
> invisible it just doesn't feel like a very clean interface design,
> overlaying extra functionality without extending the class or interface.
> This could, of cause, all be prejudice and hence having to now go off and
> judge what benefits it gives over a more clear separation.
> 

No, your observations are not AT ALL prejudical.

This lack of a "clean interface design " is part
of what I have been wrestling with in my mind
about how to build a JVM below the foundational
class of java.lang.Object and friends (namely,
Class, System, etc.)  Some various other comments
on the list have also hinted at this issue,
as well as some even suggesting that various class
libraries could be used on top of the JVM.

Ultimtely, the discussion will devolve back down
to GNU Classpath, as Geir has kept prodding us all
in that direction (starting with the May announcement
and concommitant FAQ), and it correctly avoids licensing
problems with other vendors' class libraries.

Therefore, concerning java.lang.* corporately, one of
the JVM issues is going to be a proper relationship
between the JVM and java.lang, partially due to its
inherent functionality, partly due to what parts of
it are implemented as native.  A closely related
issue will therefore also be how the JVM and java.lang
work with JNI.

Just for the to-do list.


Dan Lydick




Mime
View raw message