Hi Anton, Are you proposing that all Harmony JVMs must abide by the OPEN proposal? If yes, I think that some process has to be put in place to present and discuss each of this proposal's part, and dedicate time to do so. IMO, I don't think that everyone (in the JVM sub-communityof Harmony) can simply read through this proposal and be able to make an enlightened decision about it. I think that each point would gain much from being presented along the motivation behind it.
For example, would your OPEN proposal work with a bidirectional object layout, without incurring prohivitive performance costs? [Just asking, I didn't have time to read through all of it...] Of course, this is only an opinion. :-) Etienne Anton Luht wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to try to draw attention to the OPEN proposal again. It > was published about two weeks ago and produced a very small response > in the community. This interface is very important, because if it is > accepted, it will become a base of (many?) Harmony VMs. > > For example, one of the current limitations of OPEN interfaces is that > Component Manager loads all components at startup and there's no > possibility to change a component (for example, Garbage Collector) > later. Is it OK for everyone? Maybe someone foresees problems with > such approach? > -- 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
