Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
We should provide wrappers to classes for the sake of compatibility. Are
there any legal problems with doing so?
Well, as they are not specified, runtime-specific classes there is
nothing to be compatible with to begin with. :)
An application that uses a runtime-specific class does not want to be
portable accross implementations in that particular aspect, so it's
pointless to try to make it portable by adding unspecified code to class
libraries.
In particular as due to the lack of specifications, you can not
reasonably rely on semantics of the actual implementation. Whatever the
current implementations of those runtime-specific classes is, it is
subject to change without notice, and as developers using such classes
tend to find out, usually does change without notice sooner or later.
It's much better to fix that particular aspect of an application, if
portability accross runtime implementations is what the developers want.
That's not different from writing portable code in any other language:
it is possible, but it requires discipline to stay away from
vendor-specific extensions and features.
cheers,
dalibor topic
- Re: [arch] VM/Classlibrary interface Dalibor Topic
-
