Hi Archie, For obvious reasons, I don't want to end-up "copying" Classpath. As far as I know, Harmony does not want to have any GPL code in its certified J2SE implementation. [To the casual reader: Please do not start the "mandatory" thread on copyrightability of interfaces... I know all about these things and couldn't care less at the moment.]
Now, I have nothing against doing as much as possible in Java; that has always been how we've done things in SableVM. Also, I would like to think about the VMI with the view of a "pure" virtual machine implementor, not that of a binary compiler implementor or that of a hybrid system implementor. It would just be more fun for me. I already don't like much working on VMI and class libraries; I might as well try to make it as enjoyable as possible. Will read the thread you pointed to. Thanks, Etienne Archie Cobbs wrote: > 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. -- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
