harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: Releationship to GNU Classpath?
Date Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:48:59 GMT
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:33:40AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> theUser BL wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Can anybody at Harmony say, whats the releationship (or
> > non-releationship) to GNU Classpath is?
> 
> There is no official relationship, but there's lots of awareness and
> chatter.  It's not as strong/robust/whatever as I'd like, and it's
> something to work on.
> 

It'll be stronger once there is shared code, and that's something for
next year. :)

Meanwhile, I'd like to see the JCP turn into something actually useful for J2SE
implementors, with a freely accessible TCK to all parties, rather than the
current practice which prohibits collaboration between projects
implementing the same specs. It's time for a JCP 2.7, with a focus on
improving the quality of specs, enabling open source implementations, and 
actual transparency for J2SE JSRs, so that we never again need to waste
our time with artificial barriers between spec implementors.

> > At the beginning of Apache Harmony it sounds, that Harmony would use GNU
> > Classpath for its class libraries.
> 
> No - we certainly didn't commit to anything of the sort, but certainly
> there was and continues to be interest in working together on common
> solutions to modularity and VM/classlib interface, setting us up for a
> time when the GPL gets fixed next year ;) so users have freedom to
> intermix code.

Yeah. Users can do that today already, but I don't think anyone has
stepped up to the plate to do it yet.

> > 
> > But since Intel have spend Harmony its own Swing implementation, it is
> > clear, that there would existing two OpenSource Java-implementations:
> > GNU Classpath based VMs and Apache Harmony.
> 
> Clearly.  There are actually more than two, depending on how you think
> about it.  There is Apache Harmony, which will be full Java SE (vm and
> classlib) and then you'll probably see combinations, assuming people go
> and get the TCK and test :
> 
> GNUClasspath + Kaffe
> GNUClasspath + JamVM
> ...
> GNUCLasspath + HarmonyVM
> 
> and hopefully
> 
> Harmony Classlib + Kaffe
> ....

We'll have to wait for GPLv3 for Harmony to be distributable as part of 
GPLd VMs.

> > Thats the comment of someone from GNU Classpath, how its poit of view
> > about Harmony and GNU Classpath is:
> > http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14198&comment_id=110641
> > 
> > And here are two blog-entries:
> > http://metastatic.org/text/Concern/2006/05/30/harmony/
> > http://kennke.org/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/05/30#harmony-jfc
> 
> I posted a response to the first one, as I thought the characterization
> was unfair, as I think the author didn't really follow the project that
> closely.
> 
> Yes, we are getting big contributions and yes, it's helping us move
> forward fast, and no, I certainly won't apologize for it.  All of the
> work that happens once software reaches Harmony is done in the open, on
> our mail lists, our JIRA and our Wiki....  it's an Apache project.
> 
> > 
> > The situation is the following:
> > GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony are both OpenSource projects to create
> > an OpenSource Java.
> > So, both have the same goal.
> 
> Yes - helping prove one of the nice aspects of the Java ecosystem, that
> it's spec based, and multiple independent implementations can be created
> to give users choices.

I'd also love to see both drive the quality of the current specs in the
J2SE field up, since it is partially embarassingly low (HTMLWidget). 
For that, we'll need a new JCP, though, that focuses on quality & open 
source community participation, rather than whatever it is focusing on now.

> > 
> > Then there existing developer, who writes code for Harmony and others
> > who writes code for GNU Classpath. Thats duplicated work. And if both
> > groups would working on _one_ class-implementation together, they could
> > be faster then, if both groups would reinvent the wheel itself.
> 
> Sure it's duplicated work, but choice and diversity is good.   People
> are volunteering their time/resources so it's hard to tell them "no".
> 
> I think the whole Java ecosystem benefits from this.
> 
> > 
> > Is the reason the different licenses?
> > 
> 
> That's certainly a reason for some people.
> 
> > Then Miguel de Icaze is right, if he wrote at
> > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2005/May-07.html
> > that the MIT/X11 license is the best, because its the least common
> > denominator for all
> > (btw: the last Java-articel by Micual is at
> > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19-2.html)
> > 
> > Or have GNU Classpath and Harmony different point of viewes how to
> > implement something?
> 
> Sure.  Definitely.  We had a greenfield in which to implement our
> modularity ideas.  So far, it's worked exceedingly well in terms of
> developer productivity, and I'm excited to see what happens as people
> wish to provide alternative implementations of the modules (such as a
> security module that uses some kind of hardware accelerator...)
> 
> > 
> > Or could it be possible, that GNU Classpath developer could also publish
> > its code under the ASL2 ?
> 
> Of course they can.  (It's AL2, btw... there is no word "Software" in
> "Apache License")
> 
> > Or that Harmony developer could also publish its code under the GNU
> > Classpath-license?
> 
> Any contributor to Harmony, be it an individual or a corporation, is
> free to license their work under as many licenses as they wish, as long
> as it's not a derivative of someone elses work....

Yeah, the projects are 'plug-compatible' regarding contribution processes.

> > So, that not all the work is duplicated done.
> > 
> > I also thought about Harmony and GNU Classpath on the GNU Classpath
> > mailinglist at
> > http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000956.html
> > and the only answer is
> > http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-June/000965.html
> > 
> > 
> > As I have said before: For me it looks, that two projects doing the same
> > thing with the same goal, but without interaction to each other.
> 
> We certainly could and should talk more.

We also need more actions, though, be it sharing code, be it fixing the JCP, be it working
together on the TCK. 

cheers,
dalibor topic


> geir
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Greatings
> > theuserbl
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 

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