On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Steve Poole wrote: > On 26/04/11 15:54, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:59 AM, Steve Poole wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> * Allow for use of more portable build tools (compilers etc.) where >>>>> possible >>> Can I add support for alternative JVM's ? >> >> Seems a bit out of scope to me. >> > Sorry, it was a bit of a flippant one liner, I owe you more details. > > There are three usecases I see that require the OpenJDK build process to be > modified to accommodate: > > The first is bootstrapping a build. I'd like to be able to build OpenJDK on > a new platform without the need for a previous SDK build to be present. > In this usecase it's possible that an simple interpreter based JVM would be > sufficient (ie Zero) (or even maybe a cross compiling mode)
> > The second is getting OpenJDK to build on a platform where a hotspot JVM > doesn't exist and may never exist. As you guess I'm thinking of IBM > platforms specifically. I'm don't expect to port Hotspot to AIX so I need to > be able to make the OpenJDK build work with J9. > > The third (a variant of the 2nd) is where another JVM vendor wants to get > OpenJDK working with their JVM - regardless of the availability of a Hotspot > JVM on the target platform. > > To be clear. I'm not suggesting that this project step up to defining the > interfaces between JVM and classes. This is simple pragmatics. The Hotspot > JVM is the starting point for the mould and I would expect to make J9 (or any > new JVM) fit into it as much as possible. However there will be changes > needed. These are mostly simple, like parameterising JVM command line > options, to the more complicated like separating out JVM intrinsic classes > such as String.java, Object.java, Thread.java etc so that the right versions > get build and packaged. I certainly can understand these needs, but it is still seems beyond the initial scope of this project. Maybe in a phase 2? -kto
