harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Hamid <ar...@cornell.edu>
Subject Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does Harmony need towrite. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:01:16 GMT
Gah.  :(

So if I am to understand this correctly: Classpath java.lang.* implementation does not rely
on specifics of any given VM* interface implementation, but said VM* interface implementations
MAY rely on internals of existing Classpath java.lang.* classes? (so there is a one-way dependency
from the VM* implementation to Classpath but not vice-versa, hence the "out of the box" claims?)
 And through deduction, "standardizing" this VM* interface would also entail "standardizing"
reverse access to the class lib java.lang.* implementations (either through some informal
agreement on package visibility members *yuck*, or through a more sophisticated, but more
cumbersome, API)?

Aaron

Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> You're missing the fact that moving these classes into another packages
> creates another problem that is much worse. Namely that you often need
> to access private state in the public classes, you can do that by living
> in the same package, that's why the VM* classes live in the same package
> as their public counterpart.

Sven de Marothy wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 00:26 +0200, Santiago Gala wrote:
>>A few classes need to be modified:
> 
> You're a bit confused here. Of course the Classpath VM interface
> requires the VM to provide certain classes. How else would it work?
> 
> That does not mean to say that classpath itself needs modification

Mime
View raw message