On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 21:59 -0400, Bob wrote:
> If you wish to develop a
> protocol in which (potentially malicious) code can be WRITTEN on
> computer A, then SENT to computer B and run in a sandbox in a secure
> and flexible manner as determined by the administrator of System B
>
> then
> "Bob" == Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> While it's still in its initial stages, I would like to advocate for
Bob> the importance of the Java 2 Security Model, and that it is
Bob> implemented correctly.
I wouldn't worry about this too much, I think it is implicit in the
goal of having
Maybe it seems like a grim environment for starting a new project.
Well, considered on technical grounds alone, it is. One needs a
pretty compelling technical story to do better than already existing
projects.
As I mentioned in my last post, proper implementation (and
verification) of the Java Se
Harmony sounds like a great and well-needed project.
While it's still in its initial stages, I would like to advocate for
the importance of the Java 2 Security Model, and that it is implemented
correctly. Past free Javas have essentially ignored this aspect of
Java. However, the security model
On 09 May 2005 13:10:45 -0600, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Open problems
>
> * The class library is incomplete. I tend to dump this in the 'bug'
> category. Anyway, the reason the class library appears in both the
> non-problem and problem lists is that it seems unlikely that a
> So for me one of the primary goals of Harmony would be to create a
> framework inside which specialist VM's could be implemented.
The modular design of the Harmony VM will make easier the testing of
experimental GCs, class validators, etc... That is a great feature for
researchers. Imagine how e
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:37 -0400, Brian Goetz wrote:
> > It ought to be possible,
> > though difficult, to write a configurable core VM that can be reused
> > by other projects. The idea here is, have a reusable reference
> > implementation, and reduce writing a VM to writing an execution
On 5/9/05, Steven Augart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Fragmentation. I think there are too many free JVMs.
>
> Amen to that. I hate to say it, since my own favorite VM is one of the
> ones keeping that space big. But a "state of the art" optimi
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:08 -0700, Steven Augart wrote:
> I'd like to take off on a tangent here. At one point I had the naive
> idea that I could make Jikes RVM able to play nicely with GCJ. What
> really quashed the idea was the issue of garbage collection -- GCC is not
> designed to pass type
> I am a newbie to this list. What is the official web site for this
> project ?
not yet - AFAIK.
Jan
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
On May 9, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
It ought to be possible,
though difficult, to write a configurable core VM that can be
reused
by other projects. The idea here is, have a reusable reference
implementation, and reduce writing a VM to writing an execution
engine (and perha
--- Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Fragmentation. I think there are too many free JVMs.
Amen to that. I hate to say it, since my own favorite VM is one of the
ones keeping that space big. But a "state of the art" optimizing
compiler stops being "state of the art" when the art progr
I've started writing, and then deleted, a few messages to this list
about different aspects of what I see as the solution -- using
Classpath, notes on licenses, etc. But this proved unsatisfactory and
I decided instead to start with a note about what I see as the
problems in the free java space.
Sven de Marothy wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 06:47 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I think the biggest barriers are various licensing issues, the fact
that there isn't a "full stack project", and completeness.
Well, the general issues of FSF vs ASF licensing if of course a concern
to everybody
I am a newbie to this list. What is the official web site for this
project ?
Thanks
-- pady
Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 07:57 -0700, Jason Brittain wrote:
Then this page (along with others) probably shouldn't say that it is under
the "GNU General Public License V2 or later":
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/classpath
You're right. It's not the GPL. It's some other license
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 07:57 -0700, Jason Brittain wrote:
> > Classpath is a GNU project, but it is NOT under the GPL.
>
> Then this page (along with others) probably shouldn't say that it is under
> the "GNU General Public License V2 or later":
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/classpath
That
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 07:57 -0700, Jason Brittain wrote:
> Then this page (along with others) probably shouldn't say that it is under
> the "GNU General Public License V2 or later":
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/classpath
>
> You're right. It's not the GPL. It's some other license. But,
Hi Sven.
Sven de Marothy wrote:
Classpath is a GNU project, but it is NOT under the GPL.
Then this page (along with others) probably shouldn't say that it is under
the "GNU General Public License V2 or later":
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/classpath
You're right. It's not the GPL. It's some ot
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 12:41 +0200, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
> I see from the announcement that the bigwigs of the most popular
> free/open-source Java infrastructure projects have signed (Tromey,
> Topic, Wielaard in particular), so there is certainly at least a token
> interest in the Gra
Hi Steve,
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 08:13 -0700, Steven Augart wrote:
> This is ideal. I was concerned that we'd be building a new set of
> APL-licensed libraries from scratch, after the hard work we've put into
> GNU Classpath.
And thanks for your contributions to it!
It seems most people involved
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 06:47 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I think the biggest barriers are various licensing issues, the fact
> that there isn't a "full stack project", and completeness.
Well, the general issues of FSF vs ASF licensing if of course a concern
to everybody. But with that sai
On May 8, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
Hello all,
I've contributed a line or two of code to Classpath, and so obviously
I'm pretty interested in seeing a free implementation of Java, and I'm
all for cooperation.
Yay!
But, I'm going to nasty and critical now and take a 'devil's advocate'
23 matches
Mail list logo
