On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:55 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
IMHO the major issue is to put all the requirements for the
classpath on the paper, and then to see if the GNU classpath is
usable, and if not, can it be adopted to fulfill all the
requirements.
That's not an unreasonable idea.
Thanks for volunteering :)
Go for it!
Well It depends on the Harmony goals at the first place.
I hope the Harmony will offer more then just
Solaris/Sparc, Win/x86, Linux/i386/amd64.
I assume that whatever people want to do, we will do. I hope that it
can be ported - if there's interest - to any platform out there.
BSD, for example, and embedded. Also, a much wider hardware matrix,
including PPC, Itanium, etc...
Right now the GNU classpath is GNU tools only. Trying to
compile that on WIN32 or WIN64 is very painful without
going trough some posix layer.
Also the GUI part is GTK only, so even with using things like
gtk-win32 it adds an extra layer in between.
Great - so factor this into the class library requirements paper that
you volunteered for :)
Anyhow, like said at the beginning, I think we should build our
own classpath. I can volunteer for that, using APR as a
OS abstraction layer. For me using GNU classpath could give
some jump start, but in the long run, we'll have to build
our own classpath.
That's not unreasonable - we'll do it if there's interest. As for
now, as you note, we can work w/ GNU Classpath as a jumpstart and see
where it takes us.
I think that we should remain committed to making things as pluggable
as possible, and will re-kindle the VM/Classlibrary discussion we
started a while back.
We also want to be sure that if we do any class library work here,
that we modularize in such a way that parts can be repurposed
elsewhere - like swing or other such uglies...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
