Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of xiaofeng.li@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.204 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=E/ujn6X/fOAD2FWJhqpZ2M7mo0bNeQqBuG6zKlD1Jwrhv+HCS1c99JPv8eurejyKzSZKyEYwAUdXmOK2I4sezu0XtU6ipot36jreCbjU7sHMKWag0lymyIyExys84yxrnokyO2i1B3O2X6axSAgzCH1k9opxqzadr0xGfiiuOZ4=
Message-ID: <9623c9a505083005342b4a5ac@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:34:39 +0800
From: Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [arch] Modular JVM component diagram
In-Reply-To: <B7CC1D30-C456-45CC-B7D3-C1F716652E5B@braithwaites.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050819000417.86751.qmail@web41202.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <4305871C.5020200@gatewide.com> <20050819091045.GC27358@dozer>
	 <43065A13.7050006@gatewide.com>
	 <9623c9a50508281806724af91b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <B7CC1D30-C456-45CC-B7D3-C1F716652E5B@braithwaites.net>

Hi, Ron, I think your concern is valid. We fully understand POSIX has
been and is being used widely. That's why we want to have a discussion
here. APR does have some features a JVM may need in all platforms,
such as atomic operations, which are lacked in POSIX. And APR is
available on a couple of different platforms. Yes, POSIX is availabe
on some non-UNIX systems too, e.g., one can use POSIX on Windows
through Windows Services for UNIX or Cygwin.
=20
I'd like to hear how other people think. Folks on the mailing list, comment=
s?

Thanks,
xiaofeng

On 8/29/05, Ron Braithwaite <ron@braithwaites.net> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2005, at 6:06 PM, Xiao-Feng Li wrote:
> > Posix is popular and widely used across many different platforms.
> > Intel had
> > implemented ORP basically on top of Posix, and it was easy to use
> > Posix to
> > wrap Windows APIs.
> >
> > Now there are more portable API libraries to choose from, such as
> > APR, and
> > IBM Portability Library. For ease of portability across a broad
> > range of
> > platforms, I suggest that we use APR as the portability api. Do
> > folks on the
> > mailing list think that this is a good idea?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > xiaofeng
>=20
> <delurk>
>=20
> As an intensely interested bystander, I'll just kick in my two cents
> here. Posix compliance is a really good idea, since it is so
> frequently specified by so many corporate and governmental policies
> and regulations (e.g., AFIPS, if memory serves).
>=20
> Yes, there are some portable API libraries out there that are
> superior in certain aspects to Posix. But I think the repercussions
> of not being Posix-compliant are going to cost more than any gains
> from specific gains by a less ubiquitous library.
>=20
> Just my two cents worth.
>=20
> Peace,
> -Ron
> </delurk>
>=20
> Ron Braithwaite
> 2015 NE 37th Ave
> Portland, OR 97212 USA
> 503-267-3250
> ron@braithwaites.net
>=20
>