On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
You are misrepresenting the problem. it's not that it's language
protection, but that you extend java.lang namespace and are hoping
that you don't get tromped by the spec at some point in the future.
(Nor is it
On Jun 8, 2005, at 12:07 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
Sven de Marothy wrote:
Geir.. I really don't get your position here. The way I read your
arguments are: Harmony should spend time and energy
implementing Sun's class library interface, which is proprietary,
closed-source, unspecified,
Sven de Marothy 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 I wrote
I assume that if the Harmony
On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
Hi,
Ok, the amount of confusion going on is just amazing.
I'll try to recapitulate what the actual situation and actual issues
are.
It is of course impossible to implement a java class library
completely
independently of the Virtual
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
Sven de Marothy wrote:
I really don't view it that way. I view it as 'Is it worth spending
effort on this?'.
I understand where Geir is coming from here: even more important then
the implementation, one of Harmony objectives is to involve different
groups as well as commercial companies,
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:31 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: The Classpath VM interface. (Please read)
Sven de Marothy wrote:
I really don't view it that way. I view it as 'Is it worth spending
effort on this?'.
Sven de Marothy wrote:
Geir.. I really don't get your position here.
The way I read your arguments are: Harmony should spend time and energy
implementing Sun's class library interface, which is proprietary,
closed-source, unspecified, may change at any time and requires a
licensing agreement
Hi,
Consider the following class libraries:
[A] Suns rt.jar and derivatives (such as IBMs) class libraries
[B] GNU Classpaths class libraries
[A] has a proprietary VM interface that is not publicly documented and
some people fear looking at the implementation because of possible taint
(IMHO
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
