Matt Benson wrote:
--- Ashish Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that is the most convincing argument till now. :-)
+1 from an Ant PMC member. That logic is irrefutable.
:)
-Matt
What about cross-compilation/cross-building ? If harmony is to be
successful in its goal of wide portability I would expect that the build
process would make cross-builds almost as easy as native builds.
-- Robin
bye :-)
Ashish Ranjan
India
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM:
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the end we decided to go with a
'conventional' native code tool set
for the native source, and 'conventional' Java
code tools for the Java
source. People just felt more comfortable
with that.
Do you think we are missing out on something
;-) ?
Well, I can see a few potential issues with
such "mixed" approach:
- In order to contribute, people would have to
learn both building
technologies - Ant and make, someone may give
up.
I don't see a great advantage to asking people
to learn 'cpptask' rather
than 'make'. I would suggest that many more C
programmers are familiar
with 'make' already, so we are not asking them
to learn something new.
[snip]
'make' also simplifies the bootstrapping issue.
When you are doing the
initial port of the VM to a new platform, and you
don't have java
running yet, having your build instructions
encoded in Ant is problematic.
Relying on the availability of a previous java
port to get the Harmony
VM building seems like a questionable porting
story. 'make' of one flavor
or another is pretty much universally available,
and seems like the
pragmatic choice for building C code.
Graeme Johnson
J9 VM Team, IBM Canada.
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
