On May 21, 2005, at 12:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it there is no TCK coverage for Swing
I'm not so sure w/ the TCK for J2SE 5.
(which will probably make that a long trip frankly) and well AWT is
what AWT is. It is unlikely that we'll achieve a satisfactory
swing implementation for some time (though there are approaches
that I've seen for automating unit tests for it).
One fantasy is that Sun might be so good as to donate an
implementation, so that we can be sure that we have something that is
compatible for our users.
Think happy thoughts on this one...
Secondly, Java applications and applets more or less suck. There
are exceptions, I agree, I know, etc. However, the approaches to
GUI in the product called "Java" are simply not competitive (and
I've no real solid knowlege of SWT, but I've programmed enough with
other toolkits to know what I'm missing). So for an achievable
simplicity initial focus should be on #1 and #3. Obviously we'll
need to cover the rest eventually.
Yep
geir
-Andy
Tom Tromey wrote:
"Geir" == Geir Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Geir> In the meantime, any comments on architectures of some of
the VMs?
Geir> I'm interest in having a balanced amount of upfront design that
Geir> prevents us from preventing participation from unexpected
places in
Geir> the future...
This is too vague -- we don't know much about the unexpected. Plus,
in most cases, the "core" part of the VM is simply not very
important.
There just isn't much code there -- JamVM is 20KLOC, anybody could
comfortably rewrite this.
Instead I think Harmony should look at 2, and possibly 3, use cases:
1. Server use, e.g., some J2EE thing.
2. Desktop / applet use.
3. Embedded use (maybe).
For 1, the execution engine and GC is really crucial. This is an
area
where hotspot-like dynamic recompilation implementations shine, IMO.
For 2, again IMO, a gcj-like shared library approach is probably more
useful. This is especially true if you expect to run more than one
program using a given library, since in this case you are talking
about controlling memory costs of the user environment as a whole.
For 3 ... "embedded" covers a lot of ground, but I wanted to
emphasize
size-critical applications. In this arena you sometimes see folks
who
care more about size than performance. This affects choice of
execution engine.
I think it is possible to work well in all 3 environments with a
single VM source base (though perhaps with different compilations of
it).
I think one way to do this would be an LLVM-based approach. This
would require LLVM improvements, but let's be very clear about
this --
*any* approach we take to get to #1 and #2 is going to require a lot
of compiler hacking. First, JITs have to be upgraded over time.
Second, even with JikesRVM I think we're talking about at least
writing new ports and an infrastructure for debuggers.
One nice thing about the LLVM approach is that, hopefully, we could
leverage other people's work. This is one reason gcj has been as
widely ported as it is; the core gcj developers hardly ever do any
architecture-specific work but instead we just inherit it from GCC.
Tom
.
--
Andrew C. Oliver
SuperLink Software, Inc.
Java to Excel using POI
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/services/poi
Commercial support including features added/implemented, bugs fixed.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
