On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:58:16 -0300 Rodrigo Kumpera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Making Harmony modular enouth to be kind of a JVM framework cannot be > done before having a working JVM. There is a lot of literature about > how frameworks should emerge from continuous design and development. THere are also several JVMs and JIT projects that can provide this current experience. e.g. Sablevm, jamvm, Jikes RVM, CACAO, gcj/gij -- the list is rich enough I have used all but Jikes RVM in the last two weeks against classpath And there is also the experiences of LLVM, and IKVM even So, I've got about 5 different builds of classpath on my machine; talk about confusing ! (to me...) > > This must not be the focus until required, so no JIT plugable layer > until someone tries to write another JIT for Harmony (emphasis on > another). The point, IMHO, is to engage those projects in a constructive way. Making a framework is constructive. > > Creating such is a big chalenge, to guess what spots need to flexible > and the others that don't. Guess what, people often make bad guesses > about these and in the end we have a very complex design with a lot of > shortcomings. Like J2EE? :) This might be a design principle: Harmony shall not be like J2EE > > I believe the focus should be on deciding if Harmony will star from > other JVM or not. I think your suggestion could have the effect of putting the Harmony project into a "JVM Beauty Pageant" business. Then there are winners and losers. Yech., Making a framework, even though it might be transiently imperfect, finesses the point; and besides, maybe a framework will allow a JVM that might be judged "less beautiful" (ugly?) today to become much more beautiful tomorrow. -Fred
