Brian Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I'm a VM implementer too and I have a few comments. One general > > point is that the current GNU Classpath version is 0.05, this > > suggests that it isn't mature yet so I think VM implementers should > > expect that the VM interface isn't yet stable. BTW, personally I > > think that 0.05 is a way too low number for the current state of > > affairs, but maybe I'm just reading too much into the number ;-) > > I don't like it either, but we have this long standing thing of making > 1.0 a full 1.1 (+++) release. Aaron's recent email speaks to this > really well.
If we are going to go forward with 1.0 being a Java 1.1 complete version, then two things I'd add to the list to get done before heading that direction: o Solidify the JVM interface. If we are going to fundamentally rethink it, the sooner the better. o Figure out the JNI/CNI situation and merge the native backends with gcj. I don't think we'd be well served to be making these sorts of major re-architectings in a post-1.0 world. Esp. those that we know we have to do (the VM interface might not fall in this space). > > And finally, here is an example of how some of the requirements can be > > very different: My VM (http://ikvm.net) is built on top of .NET, so I > > want to use the .NET class libraries for I/O, but the current > > java.io.FileDescriptor uses an int as the native handle, while I want > > the use a reference to a .NET stream object. > > This is an assumption that isn't even valid under all flavors of UNIX; > think 64 bit file systems for example. Perhaps Aaron will be able to > tackle this. This is something that should definitely be done as part of the CNI/JNI merger. -- Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
