I expected to get flamed for this. Nice to see a postive healthy discussion :)
On 5/13/05, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Write code of what ? Based on what ? > > > >Nothing has been decided ! After all this still a proposal right ? This > can > >be rejected too :) > > > > > > > > > My point exactly, nothing has been decided, perhaps it's time to make > some decisions > > >The thing is how much later into the project will the change be decided ? > > > >What if the change we make due too Poor Planning (with two capital P's) > >cause the entire work or majority of it till then to be discarded ? > > > > > > > Change isn't a bad thing. I think that the proposal is fairly clear, > but the approach to take is currently unclear, hence all the noise on > the mailing list (of which I'm especially guilty) > >> > > 2) create a community-developed modular runtime (VM and class library) > architecture to allow independent implementations to share runtime > components, and allow independent innovation in runtime components > > << > > I read this as build a better VM than HotSpot under the APL, *and* write > the class libraries. I don't read this as take kaffe or JRVM or any > other product and slap an Apache sticker and go faster stripes on it. > The proposal seems to be clear about writing from scratch if it isn't > then my bad. > > >Apache votes arent done by the developers it is done by the committe (or > am > >i wrong) > > > > > > > AFAIK wrong, at least on the other Apache projects I've worked on, > anyone can make a proposal, and developers can vote, but the committers > have veto status (correct me if I'm wrong on this). > > >Write a crude VM first, from scratch, using other VM's as guidance, but > > > > > >>not incorporating code from other projects to avoid licensing issues. > >>Yes [] > >>No [] > >> > >>At least we can see what's happening > >> > >> > >> > > > >No ? > > > > > > > > > Ok, at least it's a start ;) > -- www.FaeLLe.com <http://www.FaeLLe.com>
