harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: [arch] How much of java.* and friends does Harmony need to write. Was: VM/Classlibrary interface
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:39:59 GMT
Aaron Hamid <arh14 <at> cornell.edu> writes: 
> As 
> far as I can tell, there is no such standard interface.  So the best we have 
is to use the ad-hoc interface 
> required by our most likely class library candidate (Classpath), and 
simultaneously try to ignite 
> interest in standardizing the aforementioned interface across ma 
>  ny VMs.   
That's a rather weird thing to standardise, being the internals of a binding 
between the library and the VM, and necessarily something that is in flux, as 
VMs and class libraries change internally. And they do change quite a bit over 
time ;) 
> Obviously this is not going to gain us any leverage with existing 
proprietary VM 
> s unless they also retrofit their library - the only option in that case is 
to excise everything but 
> java.lang.* from our bundling of Classpath and try to glue on the remaining 
portion of, say, Sun's 
> library, or IBM's library; of course then those third party libraries must 
not cheat and use some of their 
> own unpublished VM-specific interfaces, which they already do. 
Harmony is not a proprietary VM, so that's not really a problem for Harmony. 
Retrofitting VMs away from different interfaces into GNU Classpath has been 
done already in projects like JikesRVM, with very good results, and does not 
seem to pose an unsurmountable challenge to VM developers in general. 
> I would not base any policy on support for developers breaking language 
rules.  Yes you can "cheat" and use 
> reflection to bypass visibility limitations (and I have even had to do this 
on some occasions to hack 
> around some things), but you leave compatibility and portability at the door 
when you start doing such things. 
dalibor topic 

View raw message