harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [jchevm] APR issues
Date Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:30:12 GMT


Tim Ellison wrote:
> Enrico Migliore wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>>> Enrico Migliore wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> Archie, Geir and Stefano,
>>>>
>>>> could you please take a look at the following assertion and correct it
>>>> if  it's wrong:
>>>>
>>>> It's worth to remember, that the goal of porting JCHEVM to
>>>> Cygwin/Windows,
>>>> is to enable us, and the people interested, to have a development
>>>> environment on Windows,
>>>> in order to start working on the APR.
>>>>   
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'in order to start working on the APR'?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> I meant, modifying JCHEVM in order to call, where applicable, the APR
>> functions.
>>
>>>> In principle, after adapting jchevm to the APR, jchevm will be buildable
>>>> with:
>>>>
>>>>   1. GCC native - build on Linux an executable for Linux
>>>>   2. GCC cross native - build on Linux an executable for Windows
>>>> (without Cygwin)
>>>>   3. MSVC native - build on Windows an executable for Windows
>>>>
>>>> The same thing applies to the Harmony Classlib
>>>>   
>>> The class library native code uses the Harmony portlib to access much of
>>> the OS-specific code covered in APR.  Rather than rewrite those natives,
>>> and loose the additional characteristics of the portlib, it would make
>>> more sense to implement the portlib on APR if that were desirable.
>>>  
>>>
>> I think I'm missing something: last week, we all agreed on "adopting"
>> the APR library for the native
>> stuff, except for the windowing subsystem. That means to me that all the
>> functions of JCHEVM and the Harmony,
>> that need to access an OS/platform service (filesystem, network, etc.)
>> should call the APR library.
> 
> No we didn't agree to do that Enrico, for the reasons I described above.

Just to reinforce... no, we didn't agree to that.

I think that the notion leveraging APR for implementing the portability 
layer for the VM was what we didn't disagree on.  ( I won't claim 
agreement...)

But that's way different than APR for the class lib portlib.

geir

> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 

Mime
View raw message