Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting

2005-07-01 Thread Robin Garner
[Flavio] Volunteered to do GC design and implementation. I feel strongly that whatever the implementation language, Harmony should use MMTk as the memory manager. Does anyone have a reason not to, or has it just not been considered ? cheers, Robin

Re: Security

2005-07-01 Thread Weldon Washburn
On 6/30/05, Neil Macneale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the reasons I am in favor of implementing as much of the JVM in Java is that I think it is easier to write secure code in Java than in C/C++. I agree with this observation. I was at Java One this week. Two days ago during a Q

Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting

2005-07-01 Thread Weldon Washburn
On 6/30/05, Robin Garner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Flavio] Volunteered to do GC design and implementation. I feel strongly that whatever the implementation language, Harmony should use MMTk as the memory manager. Does anyone have a reason not to, or has it just not been considered ? I

Re: Minutes of First Harmony Meeting

2005-07-01 Thread Daniel Feinberg
I can't find the license to MMTK. Can you post a pointer? If you download JikesRVM you can see in the MMTK directory that it is licenced under CPL or the Common Public Licence. This is quoted from the licence file supplied with MMTK: MMTk is free, open source software, distributed and freely

Re: GNU Classpath 0.16 Harmony! released

2005-07-01 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Mladen Turk wrote: Mark Wielaard wrote: GNU Classpath 0.16 Harmony! released. It's not a news if a dog bite a man; the news is if man bite a dog! So, the valuable news would be: GNU Classpath 0.16 Harmony! released under ASF licence! Anything else is just another GNU release. oh,

Re: GNU Classpath 0.16 Harmony! released

2005-07-01 Thread Mladen Turk
Garrett Rooney wrote: Anything else is just another GNU release. I fail to see how comments like this are helpful to anyone. It's not a hostile, not at all, but the GNU guys after all those months flerting with Harmony didn't give any firm licence standpoint. So AFAICT, the Harmony is GNU

Re: Security

2005-07-01 Thread Neil Macneale
Ben Laurie wrote: So, it seems to me that when you say its easier to write secure code in Java than C what you really mean is that its easier to write code free of buffer overflows in Java than C. I can't think of _any_ other interesting security properties that Java has and C lacks. Am I

Re: Security

2005-07-01 Thread Tom Tromey
Ben == Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben I can't think of _any_ other interesting security properties that Java Ben has and C lacks. Am I missing something? Probably not. At some point any VM has to do untrusted things. There may be reasons that this window is bigger or smaller, and