harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeroen Frijters" <jer...@sumatra.nl>
Subject RE: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:33:55 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>>> True, except I really hate extending java.lang. :)
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean by "extending java.lang"? GNU Classpath does not
> >>> extend
> >>> java.lang (for any reasonable definition of extend). 
> Having package
> >>> private classes is not extending.
> >>
> >> Why do you say that?   Suppose for J2SE 6, the EG adds the public
> >> class java.lang.VMObject.  then what?
> >
> > Then we rename it. A new Java version will involve changes to the VM
> > interface anyway, so this makes no difference.
> I assume you'd keep it in java.lang?
> Isn't that just sliding the deck chairs around?

No, it's a trivial cost. Your proposed solution is in reality much more

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.


View raw message