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 andrey.yakushev@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.198 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=CnTvOOzOFed0ThTBYChYxWvdgsHcuQoGdzcpO0yERbx659y66af5VTz3NF06ij0uTRrnXkICEt/VnNEIXfoc5E95KIwABrRsb/pJ9WJz0ZdgrffszPCdKDt1RvZUYKTM+/cBX/CNVQQ24d55Sy2T3zfGitSV2j8++JRHJIXdeW4=
Message-ID: <3c7e1c080605310651k7d31ca3fpdcaa897b46089217@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:51:23 +0400
From: "Andrey Yakushev" <andrey.yakushev@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OPEN Specification
In-Reply-To: <447B183F.5030607@sablevm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ddda44ee0605290724o34fd976bo7951299ba4ee7b22@mail.gmail.com>
	 <447B183F.5030607@sablevm.org>

Etienne,

Some words about your example.

OPEN doesn't rely on any particular object layout, but tries to define
functional interface for object access purposes.

Open_Managed_Object_Handle is used to access this functionality from
the components other than VM Core.

In order to eliminate performance degradation in such overhead, OPEN defines:

-          Functions that JIT-compiled code calls during its execution
(So called Helpers in OPEN) for quick access to objects from the
managed code,
-          Java methods that interact with the managed code of Java
class libraries (ObjectAccessors) for quick access from Java API

They could be even inlined in managed code thus eliminating any
modularization influence.

So, any reasonable object layout could be used in OPEN compatible VM
implementation, including bidirectional one.

Thanks,
Andrey


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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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