Ronald Servant wrote: > On 2/5/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And why did you decide this was better than #1? > > I didn't. This could be considered step 1 towards doing #1. > Producing this patch was much quicker than trying to cease all use of > the port lib in the launcher. > > Having said that, I'm not convinced that #1 is the real answer either. > <snip>
This is a good step forward. It will relieve our immediate pain of colliding classlib/drlvm/VME threadlibs. We can then take a breather and think again about how to bootstrap the portlib for use by the launcher, but the overhead of this solution is ok for now. Regards, Tim
