Hey Kelly, One thing that might be useful is to understand the kind of timeframe you are thinking about for this project?
/GES On 29 apr 2011, at 16.05, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Steve Poole wrote: > >> On 26/04/11 15:54, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:59 AM, Steve Poole wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * Allow for use of more portable build tools (compilers etc.) where >>>>>> possible >>>> Can I add support for alternative JVM's ? >>> >>> Seems a bit out of scope to me. >>> >> Sorry, it was a bit of a flippant one liner, I owe you more details. >> >> There are three usecases I see that require the OpenJDK build process to be >> modified to accommodate: >> >> The first is bootstrapping a build. I'd like to be able to build OpenJDK >> on a new platform without the need for a previous SDK build to be present. >> In this usecase it's possible that an simple interpreter based JVM would be >> sufficient (ie Zero) (or even maybe a cross compiling mode) > >> >> The second is getting OpenJDK to build on a platform where a hotspot JVM >> doesn't exist and may never exist. As you guess I'm thinking of IBM >> platforms specifically. I'm don't expect to port Hotspot to AIX so I need to >> be able to make the OpenJDK build work with J9. >> >> The third (a variant of the 2nd) is where another JVM vendor wants to get >> OpenJDK working with their JVM - regardless of the availability of a Hotspot >> JVM on the target platform. >> >> To be clear. I'm not suggesting that this project step up to defining the >> interfaces between JVM and classes. This is simple pragmatics. The Hotspot >> JVM is the starting point for the mould and I would expect to make J9 (or >> any new JVM) fit into it as much as possible. However there will be >> changes needed. These are mostly simple, like parameterising JVM command >> line options, to the more complicated like separating out JVM intrinsic >> classes such as String.java, Object.java, Thread.java etc so that the right >> versions get build and packaged. > > I certainly can understand these needs, but it is still seems beyond the > initial scope of this project. > Maybe in a phase 2? > > -kto >
