Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83876 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2005 07:32:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2005 07:32:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 23788 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2005 07:32:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 23699 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2005 07:32:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 23681 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jun 2005 07:32:11 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from nxmail.numerix.com (HELO nxmail.numerix.com) (64.94.165.143) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:32:09 -0700 Received: from sade (gatekeeper1.numerix.com [64.94.165.151]) by nxmail.numerix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FF3202160 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 03:13:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Renaud BECHADE" To: Subject: RE: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:13:02 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <7D6F9432-26D8-4C7D-B3E0-DC1D81BA40C2@apache.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 thread-index: AcVsovwayF0+Xq9qQ42y5gGQ58+CBQAH3tzw Message-Id: <20050609071300.11FF3202160@nxmail.numerix.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Nor do I disagree... I /love/ modularity too. RB "Qui ne dit mot consent" (who tells nothing agrees) -----Original Message----- From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:13 AM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface Heh. I agree. I just was too busy in the VM/class library fire- fight :) So, given that my foray into architecture discussion was such a stunning success, would you like to start the discussion of such a thing might be approached? (Please change the subject, of course...) geir On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > Apparently, only you and I agree. ;-) > > Dalibor Topic wrote: > > >> Richard S. Hall wrote: >> >> >>> To me, this is the point. I would like to see all of the >>> libraries built on to of the JVM to be packaged in a more module- >>> like fashion, so that their exports and imports are explicit. >>> There would be many benefits if this were done, rather than >>> relying on the current approach of assuming that everything is >>> accessible. >>> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >>> So, from my point of view, it is definitely going in the right >>> direction to make libraries understand which class loader they >>> should use to get to their own "module's" classes, as opposed to >>> just assuming they can get them from any application class loader. >>> >> >> >> +1 to that, too. >> >> cheers, >> dalibor topic >> >> >> > > -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 geirm@apache.org