Simon Phipps a Ãcrit : > On 2005-04-29 22:22:14 -0700, Ken Foskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm very pleased to hear that, although I am also keen to see a full > Free VM solution show up eventually. > >> I do think we need to ensure that The SO programmers avoid proprietary >> Java extensions in their changes. I believe that all programmers are >> endeavouring to manage this. This will allow continued GCJ support. RE >> should put some focus on this in the QA checklist. > > > Totally agree. Worth observing that "proprietary" in this case is > defined as "not compatible with the JSRs approved by the JCP" rather > than "not yet implemented by a particular project". This definition is about as useful as noting the windows port can use any extension already published (including Longhorn stuff). What about the 98/NT4/2000/XP/2003 users ? If you don't restrict yourself to what's available in free VMs today (or to what is already 80% implemented) but to stuff that will be implemented on some hypothetical future (and not on the OS versions currently in use) you'll get the kind of public backlash OO.o 2 beta had. GCJ and classpath people won't always work round-the-clock to implement JSRs OO.o suddenly decided to prioritize. You obviously have no idea what mayhem OO.o 2 java decisions created linux-side. And you haven't heard the last of it either because so far a lot of users have not looked at it, so only a few people on development lists have experienced the pain of it. The shit will hit the fan when official OO.o 2 is out and users start trying to install it (only to realise they have to go the closed VM route or rebuild all their distribution to accomodate gcc4) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
