usman bashir wrote:
i am looking the same sort of things from IBM guys, as if i am not wrong
they claim to do same sort of things before :)
and it will really help full if we can have two baselines to work on.
This would work better with a diagram, ...
IBM has a set of class libraries (only
Hi Mladen,
I am curious about 'light-weight' native calls for primitive array
type you mentioned below. In the general case, a GC might move the
primitive array while the native method is operating on the array.
Can you tell us how the light-weight interface would deal with this
situation?
i am looking the same sort of things from IBM guys, as if i am not wrong
they claim to do same sort of things before :)
and it will really help full if we can have two baselines to work on.
On 8/29/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And on the wiki after posting here, please?
And on the wiki after posting here, please? :)
geir
On Aug 19, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 7/11/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between
IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 7/11/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We deliberately haven't looked at the GNU
Classpath/VM interface specification.
The principal goals are to enable the
On Aug 15, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 7/12/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface
between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We
Hi Weldon,
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 7/12/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We deliberately haven't looked
On 7/12/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We deliberately haven't looked at the GNU
Classpath/VM
On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:38 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The reason nobody answered this question is because we are still
debating how to accept code that is both GPLv2 and ASLv2 compatible.
I'm not sure that's the issue exactly -
Hi Geir,
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:32 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
If there are non-trivial pieces of code, they can be posted here if
or should be submitted into a JIRA, choosing to contribute under the
apache license, and then post a message here.
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 19:40 +0200,
Hi,
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:38 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The reason nobody answered this question is because we are still
debating how to accept code that is both GPLv2 and ASLv2 compatible.
I'm not sure that's the issue exactly - I think it's about dual
licensing.
No it is
Hi Johnson!
it is really good, some what like COM (querying IUknown ,sorry for having
some term from nonjava ;) ), yeah i think so this way not only promote the
interop as well as we can replace the each trianger side (VM, OS layer and
class library).
though i suppose the efficieny can be a
On Jul 18, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
The mailing list is probably not the right forum for posting non-
trivial pieces of code. Geir: What's the right forum for this sort
of discussion?
I am checking every day to see if the answer to this has popped up,
but no luck
On Jul 18, 2005, at 1:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mailing list is probably not the right forum for posting non-
trivial
pieces of code. Geir: What's the right forum for this sort of
discussion?
I am checking every day to see if the answer to this has popped
up, but
no luck so
The mailing list is probably not the right forum for posting non-trivial
pieces of code. Geir: What's the right forum for this sort of discussion?
I am checking every day to see if the answer to this has popped up, but
no luck so far. In case I missed something, could someone point me into
The mailing list is probably not the right forum for posting non-trivial
pieces of code. Geir: What's the right forum for this sort of discussion?
I am checking every day to see if the answer to this has popped up, but
no luck so far. In case I missed something, could someone point me into
the
Akhilesh Shirbhate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/12/2005
05:18:20 AM:
Can we have a look at the vmi.h and the list of 18 classes, and
specially the two classes required for integration ?
As a follow-up to Tim Ellison's response let me provide more detail on
J9's VM Interface (VMI) and Kernel
Can we have a look at the vmi.h and the list of 18 classes, and
specially the two classes required for integration ?
Besides, I would also like to know the changes/extensions you have
thought till date for 1.5 spec.
To me, it seems that there should be a lot of extensions given the
fact that 1.5
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We deliberately haven't looked at the GNU
Classpath/VM interface specification.
The principal goals are to
Tim Ellison wrote:
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We deliberately haven't looked at the GNU
Classpath/VM interface specification.
snip/
If there is an interest, we can share the interface we are using and
evolve it as part
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:21 PM, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Ok, from the school of Storming the Gates! Take 2, lets again
examine the question of VM/classlib interface as this is an
important aspect to address and our first run at it wasn't so
successful.
The questions
3. Don't worry about inlining Java code: assume the VM can do 'easy'
inlining like invoking static methods.
How does that aspect matter to the VM/classlib interface?
It matters in that when defining the VM/classlib interface you
should assume that adding a level of easy to
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Ok, from the school of Storming the Gates! Take 2, lets again
examine the question of VM/classlib interface as this is an
important aspect to address and our first run at it wasn't so
successful.
The questions I have are all around the different ways has this
Recently, within IBM, we have been defining the interface between IBM's
class library and the J9 VM. We deliberately haven't looked at the GNU
Classpath/VM interface specification.
The principal goals are to enable the class libraries to be hosted on
different versions of a virtual machine, and
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
- what were the architectural goals
- what mistakes made in the past did you try to avoid
- what are the known limitations
- does the interface support our target version of 1.5
Anyone who has experience, please post it here, describing the
particulars
Mladen Turk wrote:
The major problem is the way how the native OS abstraction layer is
called. JNI is used as a single native interface from the ground up
and didn't change much for all those years.
Almost all VMs have their own proprietary non-JNI native method
interface that is much more
Archie Cobbs wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
The major problem is the way how the native OS abstraction layer is
called. JNI is used as a single native interface from the ground up
and didn't change much for all those years.
Almost all VMs have their own proprietary non-JNI native method
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The API is private to the VM implementation, so the only effect
it can
have on application code is how efficient it is.
The API isn't private to the VM implementation, is it? The
_implementation_ of the API
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The API is private to the VM implementation, so the only effect it can
have on application code is how efficient it is.
The API isn't private to the VM implementation, is it? The
_implementation_ of the API is, but not the API itself - that's a
contract between
Ok, from the school of Storming the Gates! Take 2, lets again
examine the question of VM/classlib interface as this is an important
aspect to address and our first run at it wasn't so successful.
The questions I have are all around the different ways has this been
done. So far we know
30 matches
Mail list logo
