harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anton Luht" <anton.l...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OPEN Specification
Date Wed, 31 May 2006 06:01:46 GMT
Etienne,

I didn't mean that every Harmony JVM should follow OPEN interface. It
is not necessary to implement but maybe JVMs can benefit from
following it (or any kind of standard interface accepted by the
community). It is just a proposal with some simple ideas behind it:

First, JVM should be modular. Second, those modules should have
standard interfaces (and therefore, be reusable in other VMs).

If you don't agree with this approach or have any other thoughts about
the proposal - please share it with the community - your opinion and
your experience is valuable.

I believe this document was made so large not with the intention that
nobody would read it but just because of the complexity of problem and
an attempt to clarify all issues :)

-- 
Regards,
Anton Luht,
Intel Middleware Products Division


On 5/29/06, Etienne Gagnon <egagnon@sablevm.org> wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> Are you proposing that all Harmony JVMs must abide by the OPEN proposal?
>  If yes, I think that some process has to be put in place to present and
> discuss each of this proposal's part, and dedicate time to do so.  IMO,
> I don't think that everyone (in the JVM sub-communityof Harmony) can
> simply read through this proposal and be able to make an enlightened
> decision about it.  I think that each point would gain much from being
> presented along the motivation behind it.
>
> For example, would your OPEN proposal work with a bidirectional object
> layout, without incurring prohivitive performance costs?  [Just asking,
> I didn't have time to read through all of it...]
>
> Of course, this is only an opinion.  :-)
>
> Etienne
>
> Anton Luht wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to try to draw attention to the OPEN proposal again. It
> > was published about two weeks ago and produced a very small response
> > in the community. This interface is very important, because if it is
> > accepted, it will become a base of (many?) Harmony VMs.
> >
> > For example, one of the current limitations of OPEN interfaces is that
> > Component Manager loads all components at startup and there's no
> > possibility to change a component (for example, Garbage Collector)
> > later. Is it OK for everyone? Maybe someone foresees problems with
> > such approach?
> >
>
> --
> Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.            http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
> SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
> SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message