We've had this discussion before, in another guise. If JOS does
not require anything special from its JVM -- where I contend that it
does -- than the java standard itself will provide the necessary
portability. If JOS /does/ require something special -- e.g. java
processes -- from its JVM, than there needs to be a standard interface for
this. Since that something special would require VM modifications anyway,
it makes sense to define those things at the VM level. (As opposed to at
a Java wrapper level, where the VM provides its own implementation
classes.) If all that JOS requires from its JVM can exposed in this way,
there's no reason to standardize on anything at a lower level than
this.
-_Quinn
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
