Hi Renaud,
(B
(BRenaud BECHADE wrote:
(B> $B!d(BI think this discussion soon gets into a java language/system debate,
(B> $B!d(Bbecause one could argue why we need to do this tight bundling between
(B> $B!d(Bthe bunch of classes in rt.jar and the vm version. For instance: Why
(B> do
(
M
(BTo: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
(BSubject: Re: Harmonizing on modularity
(B
(BHi Doug,
(B
(Bthanks for joining the discussion.
(B
(BDoug Lea wrote:
(B>
(B> No matter whether you think you are starting with a JVM written in
(B> Java or a micro-kernel-ish one in C (which seem to be the le
These issues were being touched on a prior thread named "Class Library
Modularity".
I think this is a very interesting area. A lot of this type of
modularity stuff has been investigated in the OSGi framework for quite
some time. It is possible to go a long way toward decent modularity just
by
Hi Doug,
thanks for joining the discussion.
Doug Lea wrote:
>
> No matter whether you think you are starting with a JVM written in
> Java or a micro-kernel-ish one in C (which seem to be the leading
> options), you will probably discover that you end up writing most of
> it in Java.
I think th
No matter whether you think you are starting with a JVM written in
Java or a micro-kernel-ish one in C (which seem to be the leading
options), you will probably discover that you end up writing most of
it in Java. For just about every major subsystem, you will find that
some of it has to be in J
