On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 04:19 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote:
Does 'them' mean the VM interface? If yes, then I do not see a problem.
IMHO we (=Classpath) should release the interface as MIT/X11 license or
even place it in the public domain.
Would that be a feasible option?
IANAL. But as far as
that Jeroen just posted for IKVM (based on GNU Classpath)
http://www.frijters.net/JDK-1.4-vs-IKVM-0.18.0.0.html
(As you can see that is for 1.4 though).
I believe kaffe.org has some 1.5 comparisons.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Sven de Marothy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 16:17 +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Actually, it underestimates the number of errors. For binary
compatibility the results are still valid though. The differences really
only matter for source level (and to a limited degree reflection)
compatibility.
Really? Ok. I got it
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 20:27 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:39 AM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
This was in response to Rodrigo saying Harmony can't use Qt. Let's
forget for a second that Qt is available in FOSS versions, and just
consider it as a proprietary library
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 10:44 -0400, PJ Cabrera wrote:
I agree with Sven that the final word on licensing for any project is
with the project leader. In the case of GNU Classpath, that's Mark
Weilaard. But I disagree that anyone else should be discouraged from
expressing their opinion,
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 09:14 -0400, PJ Cabrera wrote:
Sven, how far along on the Qt peers are you? Which version of Qt are you
using?
Hmm, hard to say. I've been targetting Qt4, but I started hacking them
on Qt3, I was more than half-done before, but now I moved them over to
Qt4 and have to
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 10:30 -0300, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
Harmony or classpath won´t be able to use these peers, as QT is GPL.
BTW, could *everybody* PLEASE abstain from talking about GNU Classpath's
politics here?
First, it is off-topic. This isn't the Classpath mailing list.
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 00:13 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[snip:Blahblahblah, qt licensing]
That's no fun. Remember, we're happy w/ people innovating and doing
closed source impls of their work if they choose.
Well, you can't do a closed source impl of GTK (LGPL) either. And Open
Motif
Now for OS X, you can do a nice set of peers implementing all the above on
Aqua.
Sorry, I meant Quartz of course, not Aqua.
/Sven
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 14:54 +0200, Nacho G. Mac Dowell wrote:
How many people on this list have NEVER looked (not edited) at, say,
java.lang.String?
Me. And all other GNU Classpath contributors on this list. At least 3 of
the 9 listed in the proposal as possible commiters.
If you want
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 16:45 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
If you have downloaded Harmony, which intends to be a full JDK including
a VM and class library, why would you want to be able to use that with the
class library from a different JDK?
In [arch] VM Interface on 6/06/2005 10:32 AM
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 08:15 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
Sun has not documented how their VM works with rt.jar. Therefore it is
not possible to develop a Sun class library-compatible VM in a
clean-room fashion.
Not *now*, but Harmony
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 10:01 -0400, Aaron Hamid wrote:
Gah. :(
So if I am to understand this correctly: Classpath java.lang.* implementation
does not rely on specifics of any given VM* interface implementation, but said
VM* interface implementations MAY rely on internals of existing
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 12:36 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
[A] Suns rt.jar and derivatives (such as IBMs) class libraries
[B] GNU Classpaths class libraries
[..]
In an ideal world Harmony VM would be able to use either [A] or [B]
with a small adapter layer. Much like MMTk can be used in multiple
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 06:21 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
That's not fair. I told you that *I* think that extending java.lang
is a *bad idea*. You many not agree, but that's not the same is
NIH. That doesn't mean that java.lang.VMObject can't be move to
another package,
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 06:25 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jun 4, 2005, at 12:59 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
AFAIK there are
no other class libraries out there which you'll legally be able to
distribute with Harmony. So why create flexibility when there aren't
options?
Are you
+1 to that!
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 11:53 -0400, Aaron wrote:
From what I understood from this thread (and of course my understanding
could be wrong), there is some contention over where to hide this
Classlib-VM interface and implementation so that user code is least able
to use/abuse it.
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 14:01 -0500, Dan Lydick wrote:
Naw, but have you ever looked into how to design and
construct a JVM? The fundamental classes like java.lang
can typically have implementation-specific requirements,
so I am trying to focus on isolating these items from
the rest of the
Hello,
And you can circumvent the language protection (package private...)
if you work hard enough too, I believe...
Keeping out of java.lang seems wise if we can arrange it...
By writing _only_ java.lang and java.lang.*,
we can truly speak of a separate implementation.
Adding
Hello,
First off, you should read the actual Harmony proposal, footnote #2.
Historically, there has been wide exposure to VM and class-library-
specific source code that is the property of Sun Microsystems as well
as others, as it is common for commercial J2SE implementations to be
based on
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 13:15 +0500, usman bashir wrote:
And i ll add one thing more!
when u get it up, you will see many more alternative implementations will
be sumbited to harmony, so let me dream for that :) and it is what we called
power of OSS.
i mean actually in future we can then
On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 09:18 -0700, Stu Statman wrote:
Would it be possible for someone from the GNU Classpath community ... if
any are on this list ... to give an overview of the status of GNU
Classpath? How complete is it now? How much work do they anticipate it
being to get to 1.5?
Sure.
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 10:58 +0930, Nick Lothian wrote:
One specific question that I haven't seen addressed elsewhere:
Currently the FAQ for classpath says:
If you are going to contribute source code to GNU Classpath we must
make sure that you have not studied the source code of the JDK/JRE
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 11:46 -0300, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
I'm wondering, some parts of the JDK seens to be product features and not a
standard. For examples, the sound system should use arts, esd or alsa (I
believe Sun support the last 2). The printing system should support cups,
lprng or
On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 22:34 +0200, Mladen Turk wrote:
Well, I agree that no man is an island. This would be fine if
the Harmony is going to be the JVM project, rather then J2SE project.
If it will depend for it's core functionality on the code released
by non-ASF license without giving
25 matches
Mail list logo
