Etienne Gagnon wrote:
I am all in favor of implementing IBM's proposed VMI in SableVM directly. Where do I find more information about the VMI?
My opnion (just one of many of course) is that it might make more sense to "fill out" the IBM VMI so that it closely (or better yet, exactly) matches the current Classpath VM API. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that idea. See the thread "[jchevm] porting harmony classlib to JCHEVM" for a previous discussion: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] In short, the Classpath VM API is lower layer than the IBM VMI, so you'll end up implementing a bunch of the same stuff anyway. You might as well implement it in Java instead of in the VM, and doing it in the same way as Classpath would allow for much more flexibility in terms of Java class library and VM combinations and would mean many fewer changes to SableVM. Note I'm referring only to the Java/VM API, not the Java/native code API, which is really an issue "private" to the class library. -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
