hi Tom,
Tom Tromey wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Praher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob do we want to build something that competes with sun j2se/mono on the
Jakob desktop side (gnome/redhat would be interested in that)
I don't speak for Red Hat, but I can explain a little about why we
ship gcj
It is always awsome moro for the people living in this part of world (i mean
South Asia) becuase of our unability to attend that top univeristy.
thnx a lot andy
On 5/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryce Leo wrote:
Great find, can that be added to the wiki under
hi Geir,
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 19, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Jakob Praher wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 19, 2005, at 5:24 AM, Jakob Praher wrote:
Both of these are conventional expectations, and we can meet this via
pluggability, right?
If you have for instance completly
These are good thikning and i have few things more to add up.
first i think it will be better that we select a base architecture that is
completely based upon harmony rather then acquiring from other sides. then
what we can do ,we can took one two or even three VMS and incoperate them
with
On 20 May 2005 17:54:11 -0600, Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is too vague -- we don't know much about the unexpected. Plus,
in most cases, the core part of the VM is simply not very important.
There just isn't much code there -- JamVM is 20KLOC, anybody could
comfortably rewrite
David,
please feel free to ping Rob. It would be great!
thanks,
dims
On 5/21/05, David Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20 May 2005 17:54:11 -0600, Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is too vague -- we don't know much about the unexpected. Plus,
in most cases, the core part
Tom Tromey wrote:
Does anybody know if GCC allows such a thing?
It already exists -- you're describing gcj.
on another email, he wrote:
You can use gcj-as-jit right now, today, if you want, though it has
some scalability problems.
o, ok [I should really do my homework]
People, as you
Hi, Does anybody know when will this project start officialy? Does it
need to be aproved? whe will happend that?
regards,
Valentin
Project has been approved already, and is officially started:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProject.jspa?id=10740
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/harmony/
Anyway, it's still in the planningdesigning phase.
Feel free to partecipate...
Raffaele (as a simple observer...)
On May 21, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Steve Blackburn wrote:
Mark Brooks wrote:
Investigation is fine enough, but let's face facts. This is a
HUGE project.
We do NOT have the time or manpower to write two VMs as part of a
project where we need a working J2SE 5 implementation, from
basement
On May 20, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Rafal Lewczuk wrote:
Hi,
On 5/19/05, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MudgeVM is under an open license and should be looked at before
you start
committing stuff :-)
I've tried googling and freshmeating for 'MudgeVM' but couldn't
find it.
Can I ask
Thank you!
On May 20, 2005, at 3:48 AM, Raffaele Castagno wrote:
I've translated the initial proposal and the FAQ in Italian.
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Apache_Harmony_Proposal_Italian
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Initial_FAQ_Italian
Best regards.
Raffaele
--
If you want a GMail
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 21, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If the mentors of this project were to write a JVM themselves, it would
be a piece of crap :-)
Don't sell everyone so short... :)
Prove me wrong! :-)
--
Stefano.
On May 21, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 21, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If the mentors of this project were to write a JVM themselves,
it would
be a piece of crap :-)
Don't sell everyone so short... :)
Prove me
Hi List,
Now that I've been explicitly asked, I'll forego my current observer
status and give some input :) First off, I'm not comfortable pushing
JamVM, but I'll give a summary for people who are unfamiliar with it.
As has already been alluded to, JamVM's main claim is its small size
JamVM sounds very interesting. A fast lightweight interpreter has at
least two attractions:
a) portability (this is true regardless of the implementation language,
the point is that an interpreter does not require a new compiler backend
to be written for each architecture)
b) compactness
On 22-05-2005 00:49, Robert Lougher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The major problem with JamVM as regards Harmony is that it is
currently licensed under the GPL. I originally had some specific
reasons for doing this, however, I am open to suggestions about
different licensing models, e.g.
Hi,
For those of you who have not played with a JVM before and want to get a
feel for how to implement them I would highly suggest you have a look at
the JamVM codebase.This is a really nice codebase to read and it is
relatively simple to understand - at least as far as JVMs go. Congrats
Just out of curiosity, can anyone familiar with the various OSS VM
implementations being discussed share their insights regarding the
respective threading capabilities? I have heard of some commercial
specialty VMs handling upwards of 30,000 concurrent threads easily
and it would be
19 matches
Mail list logo
