harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Google Android
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:14:40 GMT
Hello Dan, all,

I want to express my thanks to Android team for making a great
product, and special thanks to a guy who convinced Google people
around him to try Harmony and my code within on the later stage of the
project. Since my code mostly resided at DRLVM and I admire VM
modularity [1], I wonder if there any possibility of code reuse
between DRLVM and Dalvik.

Which chances have JIT, GC, a verifier, or any other part of DRLVM to
be reused? Are you interested in developing common runtime building
blocks in Apache? I was a bit terrified by Android license [2] to dig
deeper into Dalvik to make suggestions on code reuse myself.

With best regards, Alexei

[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-459
[2] You agree that Google (or Google's licensors) own all legal right,
title and interest in and to the SDK, including any intellectual
property rights [...] Until the SDK is released under an open source
license, you may not extract the source code [...]

On 11/29/07, Dan Bornstein <danfuzz@google.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:51 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given that the Harmony class library natives are implemented in terms of
> > the portlib functions [1], either (a) you implemented the portlib
> > functions to work on the Android platform, or (b) changed the natives to
> > call the OS directly.
> We did (b), and it is attributable at least in part due to the way the
> project progressed: We started with an entirely new library
> implementation (not Harmony based at all), and it was only relatively
> late in Android's history (after the project was already a going
> concern for at least a couple years) that we started importing code
> from Harmony to flesh out the implementation.
> At this point, maybe it makes sense for Dalvik to start using portlib,
> but I have a clarifying question: What are the advantages and
> disadvantages of doing so? In particular, the Android project is
> generally very sensitive to unnecessary bloat and slowness. If the
> changes needed to use the portability layer really and truly wouldn't
> add extra calls (including in bytecode), extra code (ditto), or extra
> memory usage, and if the project wouldn't be able to reduce bloat by
> moving further away from the portlib style of things, then it sounds
> like it would absolutely make sense to adopt it, since (per my
> previous note) *not* using it would be an *unnecessary* difference
> between the two codebases.
> Thanks for your help,
> -dan

With best regards,
ESSD, Intel

View raw message