Brian Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The following article was interesting to me. I don't know what the > state of the JOS project is or who our liason is. Could someone from > that project bring us up to date with respect to this email referenced > below? > > http://www.jos.org/pipermail/arch/1999-December/000358.html It is interesting. If I might extract their points: 1. They think that replacement classes should be written in an alternate namespace, then ported over when completed. This certainly solves some chicken and egg problems, but it creates new ones of its own. I don't object to that approach, but what we currently have seems to be working fine. 2. Classpath/libgcj merger. No impact to JOS except that perhaps JOS could be compiled at some point. 3. VM specific aspects of Classpath. Yes, we have them. I don't see any way around them. And as noted, we do keep them separate from the main tree. This is what I gather after a very brief review. -- Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
