Hello Dan, all, I want to express my thanks to Android team for making a great product, and special thanks to a guy who convinced Google people around him to try Harmony and my code within on the later stage of the project. Since my code mostly resided at DRLVM and I admire VM modularity [1], I wonder if there any possibility of code reuse between DRLVM and Dalvik.
Which chances have JIT, GC, a verifier, or any other part of DRLVM to be reused? Are you interested in developing common runtime building blocks in Apache? I was a bit terrified by Android license [2] to dig deeper into Dalvik to make suggestions on code reuse myself. With best regards, Alexei [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-459 [2] You agree that Google (or Google's licensors) own all legal right, title and interest in and to the SDK, including any intellectual property rights [...] Until the SDK is released under an open source license, you may not extract the source code [...] On 11/29/07, Dan Bornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 2:51 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given that the Harmony class library natives are implemented in terms of > > the portlib functions [1], either (a) you implemented the portlib > > functions to work on the Android platform, or (b) changed the natives to > > call the OS directly. > > We did (b), and it is attributable at least in part due to the way the > project progressed: We started with an entirely new library > implementation (not Harmony based at all), and it was only relatively > late in Android's history (after the project was already a going > concern for at least a couple years) that we started importing code > from Harmony to flesh out the implementation. > > At this point, maybe it makes sense for Dalvik to start using portlib, > but I have a clarifying question: What are the advantages and > disadvantages of doing so? In particular, the Android project is > generally very sensitive to unnecessary bloat and slowness. If the > changes needed to use the portability layer really and truly wouldn't > add extra calls (including in bytecode), extra code (ditto), or extra > memory usage, and if the project wouldn't be able to reduce bloat by > moving further away from the portlib style of things, then it sounds > like it would absolutely make sense to adopt it, since (per my > previous note) *not* using it would be an *unnecessary* difference > between the two codebases. > > Thanks for your help, > > -dan > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
