Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
In-Reply-To: 
 <59278FC0C48A994BABABD069571E45680C3FF9BB@orsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: 
 <59278FC0C48A994BABABD069571E45680C3FF9BB@orsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <14C47716-40B4-49C0-AE5A-1CDBF5446380@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Arch] Suggestion to prioritize JVMTI over JVMPI and JVMDI
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:50:08 -0400
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org


On Sep 21, 2005, at 7:55 PM, Elford, Chris L wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> JVMTI is on track to replace the older JVMPI and JVMDI interfaces.  
> J2SE
> 5 supports JVMTI and JVMPI/JVMDI but future followons to J2SE are
> expected to remove support for the older interfaces. Tools vendors  
> seem
> to be in the process of transitioning to the JVMTI interface. It does
> not really makes sense to invest too much effort in the Harmony  
> project
> supporting the JVMPI interface. It would be much more effective to
> invest the effort making the JVMTI implementation more complete so  
> that
> it includes more of the optional functionality of JVMTI.
>
> I suggest that we concentrate our debug/tools interface work in  
> Harmony
> to making JVMTI work really well and let JVMPI and JVMDI fall away.

My knowledge of specific implementation notwithstanding :) I think it  
makes sense to prioritize so in the event timing works out that we  
decide to just jump ahead to J2SE 6 rather than implement J2SE 5, we  
can ignore them (assuming they are dropped.)

However, if we do J2SE 5, as is the current goal, we would have to  
implement them, right?

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org