WRT converting Java 5 to Java 1.4, there is Retroweaver (http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/).
GCJ support reflection now. A Java implementation without relection would be rather pointless since a lot of modern Java code relies heavily on it. For instance, the entire Eclipse plugin system uses it heavily. The GCJ VM is certianly one option for Harmony, along with the other VMs that are currently being discussed. Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Renaud BECHADE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2005 10:24 AM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Developing Harmony > > > GCJ can run native java (ahead of time) on almost any > reasonably useful platform, NOW. To my knowledge it does not > support java "generics" nor, of course, reflection. (I mean > the class foo<bar> stuff[1], but I think this is just some > boxing/unboxing question in its most naïve implementation. > Any idea on how to convert Java5 bytecode to "abtract > execution-wise equivalent" > java 1.4 bytecode? This might the fast path to get things > done, at least before reflection is considered [2]) That > being said, if a "Java in Java" VM needed to be bootstrapped, > this would probably be a relatively reliable and "easily > available everywhere" > platform, freely available, NOW, and not so slow. After all > it runs Eclipse and may be sometimes in the future the OO2 > stuff (at least according to openoffice.org What about > writing this "Harmony" VM as a plugin to the GCJ? (just like > psycho - specialization VM for python - is a plugin for the CPython > implementation) > > Just my 2 yen worth ideas, so please excuse any naïve stances. > > RB > > [1] I am not sure about the correct wording. "Generics" is an > old Ada83 term, after all. > [2] Plus the support libraries to write. Quite a good bunch > of work IMHO... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:47 PM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Developing Harmony > > Ozgur Akan wrote: > > JVM in Java will be the slower then Sun`s JVM. C or C++ is a better > choice. > > You have to undertand that "written in Java" does *NOT* > equate necessarely as "will be run as interpreted bytecode". > > -- > Stefano. > > IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party. This email represents the views of the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect those of education.au limited except where the sender expressly states otherwise. It is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it for viruses or any other defects. education.au limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this email.
