harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony future roadmap
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:22:50 GMT
On 31/Oct/2010 20:23, chris.gray@k-embedded-java.com wrote:
>> I think all options and opinions are open for discussion.  We could
>> simply continue with the current goal and encourage the Apache Board to
>> seek the JCK license by whatever means is posible, we could modify our
>> goal and plan to release an uncertified Java SE runtime, or more
>> radically change Harmony's goal away from Java SE.
> 
> Previously the situation was that Harmony didn't *want* to pass the JCK,
> Harmony *had* to pass the JCK in order to be able to make a release.

Well, not really.  We have always said that Harmony's goal was for a
compatible and compliant implementation of Java SE.  Passing the JCK has
a number of advantages, including the ability to demonstrate to our
users that Harmony is 'real' Java.

> But that was all based on agreements and contracts which have now
> been unequivocally abrogated, so I guess it doesn't matter much any
> more. In which case I think Harmony should turn its back on the JCK
> and instead seek to be as compatible as possible "by whatever means
> is posible".

I've certainly hear others making that argument too -- that is to say,
continue with the goal of of full Java compatible runtime, and accept
that Harmony won't be certified.  Of course, there are other assurances
and rights that come with passing the JCK, and so it would be
interesting to hear the importance that contributors and consumers of
Harmony place on that.

> The only question is whether Harmony should try to track
> the whole of Java 7 and 8 or try to stick with a "core" and leave the
> rest to other (possibly Apache) projects.

When you say "a core" I assume you mean Java 5 SE and/or Java 6 SE?

> "Modularising" Java in this way would already be a radical departure from
> the way Sun/Oracle have been handling the development of Java, and Harmony
> clearly has something to contribute here.  I have an inkling that such a
> "modularised" Java would be popular in enterprise computing - but as you
> know my personal interest is in the embedded kind.  In the past Harmony
> (or at least Geir) was reluctant to open up a "second front" on the
> embedded side, but now there seems to be nothing to be gained by such
> restraint ...

That may have been true in the distant past, but I hope you didn't feel
that to be the case recently.

> I'd like to make an analogy with Darwin.  (Yes, I'm a closet FreeBSD guy.)
>  Darwin is basically the FreeBSD userland that Apple distributes as part
> of OS X, without the apple-specific GUI.  (Apple also use a different OS
> kernel.)  So for FreeBSD substitute Harmony, and for Apple substitute
> another commercially successful company (which uses a different VM), and
> what do we have?  I think we have a very interesting modular approach to
> Java for mobile and embedded.

I'm assuming here that you are no longer talking about a Java SE or Java
ME compatibility story, but setting out on a new platform definition for
Harmony?

>> [1] e.g. http://s.apache.org/xI
> 
> BTW this link seems to be broken.

Works for me, it should expand out to

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/statement_by_the_asf_board

Regards,
Tim


Mime
View raw message