2006/10/10, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
BTW what if we will have Java component in future (E.g. MMTk's GC)? Will the hidden properties accessible from Java?
AFAIU the point is to separate namespaces completely, so that user could utilize any property name and it would not affect JVM in any way. Probably it is possible to map "hidden" properties to Java properties with some prefixes like "o.a.h.drlvm." or "o.a.h.gc" etc.
On 10/10/06, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/10/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mikhail, > > BTW, what would you say if all JIT-specific properties were kept > > separately? E.g. if there were JAVA, VM, JIT types of properties > > storage, would it be of some convenience to JIT side? Just curious :) > > > > I think it would be convenient if we can assign them from the command > line. > Right now we have -Dvm. -Xem. -Djit. -Dgc. set of properties. > You propose to emphasize them with -X prefix, so we have -XDvm. -XDem. and > -XDgc. as the result. > Your approach is better because the namespaces are separated. It's safer > and we remove potential problems when a property with the same name appears > in user's code. > The old approach is better because it's do the same using less entities. > > > -- > Mikhail Fursov -- Mikhail Fursov
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
