On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:38 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 12:36 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
[A] Suns rt.jar and derivatives (such as IBMs) class libraries
[B] GNU Classpaths class libraries
[..]
In an ideal world Harmony VM would be able to use either [A] or [B]
with a small adapter layer. Much like MMTk can be used in multiple
VMs
with a small adapter layer.
If you have downloaded Harmony, which intends to be a full JDK
including
a VM and class library, why would you want to be able to use that
with the
class library from a different JDK?
Because users aren't just end users writing code. We expect
participants here (and consumers of the output) to be people who need
to use Apache Harmony as a core for their VM distribution to avoid
having to re-do all the work that we do, upon which they will add
whatever features they want. This could be a new class library
tailored for some specific purpose, an augmented or modified class
library, etc.
Disregarding the illegality of distributing such a combo, there is
no good
practical reason for wanting that either.
There are quite a few good practical reasons, and remember, the above-
mentioned people would simple get their own TCK license and certify
their disto if they wanted to distribute. We provide under the
Apache License (and compatible) - what people do with the software
downstream isn't our business, nor something we willingly restrict.
(That said, we encourage compatibility as good for the whole Java
ecosystem...)
It seems unlikely that either [A] or [B] is going to invest the
time in
trying to develop a common VM interface because they are not
interested in
facilitating reuse of the alternative.
Java specifications are created by the JCP and not Sun. This issue
should be raised there before jumping to conclusions like that.
Well, that's an interesting idea - why don't we try to develop a VM/
classlib interface and bring to the JCP? :)
Sven, ever want to be a spec lead?
And as a Classpath developer (but speaking for myself), I feel that we
would be quite happy to use a common VM interface, if there was a
such a
specification. Unless of course if it was so extremely bad, that
all the
Classpath-using VMs refused to use it. Which I think is unlikely.
So it is probably going to be up to a third party like Harmony to
investigate a common VM layer.
Harmony is not a third party. We're all in this together. However,
Harmony can help solve this. Apache has a good standing in the JCP,
and
thus better chances than most for getting this specified.
I'd rather us get it worked out here, and then bring to the JCP.
I am not sure it is going to be possible either technically or
politically but it
is an interesting idea and worth trying.
The politics are easier when you work from an open mind.
/Sven
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
