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 Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:25:48 GMT
You are correct, but why take the performance and complexity hit to
solve a non-existing problem?

Regards,
Jeroen 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Hamid [mailto:arh14@cornell.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 20:44
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does 
> Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
> 
> I actually had not considered this issue which would seem to warrant 
> these classes living in the same package.  But can not an equivalent 
> solution be constructed such that the implementations of these public 
> classes can hand the VM* classes references to internal 
> structures (and 
> vice versa) though well defined interfaces, instead of relying on 
> visibility modifiers to allow the VM* objects to access 
> private state of 
> java.lang classes, thereby allowing the VM* objects to live in a 
> separate package?  Or am I misunderstanding your statement (or maybe 
> that is just too cumbersome)?
> 
> 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.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Jeroen
> 

Mime
View raw message