Royce Ausburn wrote:
In my experience, delaying the 'modular design' of a system causes more
work.
More coding work? sure thing.
If you factor into work the amount of email and time and emotional
energy you will have to consume to get to that modular design over a
mail list with 100 people,
Hi Rodrigo,
I believe the focus should be on deciding if Harmony will star from
other JVM or not.
I agree entirely that this is an important issue, and a lot of people
are working hard right now to see if this can happen. Donating an
entire JVM to apache is not a trivial issue, so we will need
On May 16, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
Making Harmony modular enouth to be kind of a JVM framework cannot be
done before having a working JVM. There is a lot of literature about
how frameworks should emerge from continuous design and development.
There's been a lot of work in this
Maybe this pluggable layer that is not well defined. I think that having
this as a link time thing is more than enouth. It doesn´t mean that only one
GC algorithm or JITer will be available at runtime, but all the options
should be defined when building the JVM.
Refactoring a system to have a
Steve Blackburn wrote:
However, it is not the either/or situtation you paint above. I think
it may make most sense to work on a preexisting donated VM or VMs
while *concurrently* developing a new VM core or cores from scratch.
This approach has a number of advantages, including maximizing our
