On May 25, 2005, at 7:06 AM, netSQL wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
both C/C++ and Java in this effort.
Good thought.
Lets consider this one step further for holly grail of Cross
Platform: Consider C# (Mono w/ GTK#) and XPCom (Firefox Xross
Platform objects) instaed of C/C++? (
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I spend a good portion of my few spare cycles pondering C# and Mono. I
don't have enough of them to have reached any intelligent conclusion,
though :)
I am an (mainly Java) application's developer. When I develop one, I
want to be able to deploy to
On 5/26/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I think that wrt trying to eliminate C++ and C, you've just
moved the problem elsewhere - because we'll still need a set of
portable intrinsics and bootstrapper, and C++/C are natural candidates.
That said, I would assume that
Archie Cobbs wrote:
Nick Lothian wrote:
According to http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~csc586a/Ass1.pdf JamVm lacks a
bytecode verifier, too.
Seems like most O/S VM's don't have one (including JC)...
Gcj, leading the way, has two, or three by now :) Kaffe and CacaoJVM
also have their own
we are talking cross-purposes...i can't keep up with all the traffic.
Are u sure, you haven't missed a nugget of information here and there?
Am not saying that you should not pick Jam. Pick jam, but there are
others who are willing to help and willing to write code and have
contributions to bring
Peter Donald wrote:
Hi,
Steve Blackburn wrote:
Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be a
major error to start coding a VM core until there was more clarity
about what we are doing and what the core would require.
You could
Peter Donald wrote:
Are you suggesting we do it w/ JC? :) Is there a single copyright
holder such
I'll have to abstain from the voting on that :-)
I am not sure why not :)
I think that what Geir is proposing is that Harmony start from some
exisitng codebase that is hacking on and
Archie Cobbs wrote:
That's a good idea... I've made a small start..
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JVM_Implementation_Ideas
Excellent!
--Steve
Weldon Washburn wrote:
In response to Geir's request, below is a first cut at a simple
high-level modular structure:
1.1) Execution Modules
Execution Manager
Execution Engine
Code generator
Profile Collector
1.2) GC
1.3) Threading/sync Manager
updated wiki with this list - http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/HarmonyArchitecture
On 5/24/05, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 23, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Steve Blackburn wrote:
Lets get moving. Comments?
I'd like to formally propose what I think many have been thinking and
maybe have already suggested - that we'll need to combine both C/C++
and Java in this effort. After thinking about it, I don't really
see upside to having two parallel tracks, when in fact we can and
should be working
I still think a java-in-java solution is the way to go. All components can
be tested from a JVM until it can hosts itself. The only reason for using
C/C++ is with a vm as seed.
If the objective is to write a high performance JVM, having a vm with an
interpreter doesn't help much.
Starting
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
a) Respectfully petition JamVM for a one-time license grant of the
codebase under the Apache License that we can start with. We would
use this as our base kernel, refactoring out the modules that we
decide on in II above, and working to implement those modules in
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
(for the record, this isn't about not doing Java or not doing
JikesRVM, but rather my understanding that we'll need a small C/C++
kernel to host the modules, no matter how they are written, and this
is a way to get that going...)
Excuse me if I'm missing
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
a) Respectfully petition JamVM for a one-time license grant of the
codebase under the Apache License that we can start with.
We would
use this as our base kernel, refactoring out the modules that we
decide on in II above, and working to implement those
Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be a
major error to start coding a VM core until there was more clarity about
what we are doing and what the core would require.
but rather my understanding that we'll need a small C/C++ kernel to
On May 23, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Steve Blackburn wrote:
Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be
a major error to start coding a VM core until there was more
clarity about what we are doing and what the core would require.
I sort of
Geir,
Am convinced that we can write a JVM in pure java with minimal C/C++.
How about we poll the VM candidates on who wants to help seed the
project, ask them to do the paperwork, then we can get folks on board
as committers and let them play in sandboxes (see below). Folks who do
the work will
Hi,
Steve Blackburn wrote:
Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be a
major error to start coding a VM core until there was more clarity
about what we are doing and what the core would require.
You could be right in that it is a
Peter Donald wrote:
Hi,
Steve Blackburn wrote:
Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be a
major error to start coding a VM core until there was more clarity
about what we are doing and what the core would require.
You could be
On May 23, 2005, at 9:54 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Geir,
Am convinced that we can write a JVM in pure java with minimal C/C++.
Why? If it has C/C++, it's not pure Java. Period.
This isn't about whether or not that it can be done in Java, or a way
to get it into C/C++. Lets get over
On May 23, 2005, at 10:31 PM, Peter Donald wrote:
Peter Donald wrote:
Hi,
Steve Blackburn wrote:
Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would
be a major error to start coding a VM core until there was more
clarity about what we are
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...but in the long wrong it may prove to be useful for helping to
kick start...
I still have no clue what long wrong means. Try again? :)
...but in the long run it may prove to be useful for helping to kick
start...
*sigh* - Sometimes I wish my brain did
Archie Cobbs wrote:
Are you suggesting we do it w/ JC? :) Is there a single copyright
holder such
I'll have to abstain from the voting on that :-)
I am not sure why not :)
I think that what Geir is proposing is that Harmony start from some
exisitng codebase that is hacking on and
On May 23, 2005, at 11:03 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Geir,
Am not sure u understood where i am coming from. (I feel that u saying
that we are not going to get commit privs for folks interested till
the design discussions are over AND that design decisions are going to
be made on the mailing
25 matches
Mail list logo
