Geir, Am not sure u understood where i am coming from. (I feel that u saying that we are not going to get commit privs for folks interested till the design discussions are over AND that design decisions are going to be made on the mailing list ONLY?)
I have trouble keeping up with the mailing list and so do others...am not saying that we have to check-in code from all the seed VM's into our repo. I want to keep the momentum going by getting committers on board, letting them share thoughts, documents and code if any (SVN repo?), may be use JIRA to document requirements etc. Right now no one knows who is going to be working and on what and how to contribute etc. As stefano says - "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"....Let's build the community without waiting for the discussion to end on the mailing lists and let the committers/community decide on how best to move forward. We don't (mentors) have to pick the "winner"? do we? Thanks, dims On 5/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 23, 2005, at 9:54 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > Geir, > > Am convinced that we can write a JVM in pure java with minimal C/C++. > > Why? If it has C/C++, it's not pure Java. Period. > > This isn't about whether or not that it can be done in Java, or a way > to get it into C/C++. Lets get over that misconception right now. > I'm sure that major parts can be done in Java - it's been > demonstrated by JikesRVM, and lots of experienced VM people point in > that direction, even with a C/C++ core. I have no problem with that. > > > How about we poll the VM candidates on who wants to help seed the > > project, ask them to do the paperwork, then we can get folks on board > > as committers and let them play in sandboxes (see below). Folks who do > > the work will then get to decide the future direction. We don't have > > to make the technical decision now before the committers are on board. > > What do you think? > > I don't see what we gain. We want to create *our design*, not make > "frankenVM". The point of starting with a small seed C/C++ kernel is > to get the bootstrap and intrinsics support that *any* VM will need, > pure C, pure Java, or mixed. > > Our discussions will point to where we have to refactor. > > On top of that, we build what we decide to build, not what we find > out there, unless what we find out there is what we designed for. > > geir > > > > > Steve, > > As a mentor, i agree with you whole heartedly. How do we go about this > > process of designing the core for harmony? Could we say strip down say > > JamVM/JCVM to create a bootstrapper (OS dependent stuff ONLY) for a > > stripped down JikesRVM in our sandbox to illustrate the validity of > > writing the "almost" the whole JVM in java? [Nothing like working code > > to get juices flowing]. My problem is that i haven't done this > > (writing a JVM) before, so am itching to do something that will help > > me understand better the problems/challenges involved and help me on > > deciding what to look for in the other existing VM's that we can > > leverage/use. > > > > Thanks, > > dims > > > > On 5/23/05, Steve Blackburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> Lets get moving. Comments? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be a > >> major error to start coding a VM core until there was more clarity > >> about > >> what we are doing and what the core would require. > >> > >> > >>> but rather my understanding that we'll need a small C/C++ kernel to > >>> host the modules, no matter how they are written, and this is a way > >>> to get that going... > >>> > >> > >> This is not the case Geir. > >> > >> When a VM is built in Java, the only need for C/C++ is for direct > >> interaction with the OS (one modest file of C code with interfaces to > >> the most basic OS functionality), and for bootstrapping (another > >> OS-specific file of C code plus about a dozen of lines of assembler). > >> That's it. The kernel of the VM can be entirely written in Java. > >> Whether or not we chose to do that is another matter, but your > >> comment > >> above is technically incorrect, and therefore should not be the > >> basis on > >> which we start coding. > >> > >> This misconception highlights why it is that I think we need a > >> seeding > >> process to gain some collective understanding before we start cutting > >> code for a new VM core. This requires some patience but I think will > >> make the difference between us producing a) something that is > >> free, runs > >> OK, and is portable, from b) something that leverages the outstanding > >> collective pool of ideas at the table (ovm, gcj, kaffe, joeq, > >> jamvm, jc, > >> orp, mudgevm, jikesrvm, etc etc) to deliver what I think could be the > >> best performing, most exciting VM, free or non-free. > >> > >> I am very excited about all of the technology that this project is > >> bringing out. I think JamVM looks outstanding, but I think it > >> would be > >> a serious error to take it as the core for Harmony. It was not > >> *designed* with our goals in mind. We need to understand where the > >> value in JamVM (and all other candidates) is, and then maximize our > >> leverage on that in the Harmony VM, whether it be through an > >> entire VM > >> (unlikely), components (I hope so), designs (I am sure), or > >> mechanisms > >> (certainly). > >> > >> I understand that it is important that we seize the enthusiasm of the > >> list and start working, but respectfully, I think that cutting > >> code for > >> a VM kernel right now would be a bad mistake, one that might be > >> gratifying in the short term but that is likely to lay the wrong > >> foundation for what I think may become the most exciting VM > >> project yet. > >> > >> --Steve > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ > > > > > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
