On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 14:20 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > Reimplementing java.lang certainly is a penalty. > > I don't understand - I might have misstated something. Why do you > think I want to re-implement java.lang?
No, I can't speak for you. But it's been suggested on this list. > Any JVM that uses GNU Classpath has to implement java.lang parts, right? > All I'm suggesting that we move the stuff that's not standard java.lang as > defined in a spec somewhere off to another package name. Thanks for clarifying your position. > Why not do it now so we don't have to fix it later, since to do J2SE > 5 we *are* going to have to modify it... Because I'm doubtful that we'll be able to produce a good specification without anyone having done at least one implementation. > But before we go leaping off to 1.6, how about 1.5? And perhaps support 1.4 before that? I'd say wait until you get full 1.4 before worrying about 1.5. > >> why not? Why restrict that freedom for users? > >> > > > > 1) Because Sun hasn't documented their VM interface. > > We don't care, do we? We can do our own. Ok. But then you won't be able to use Sun's class library. Which I believed was the point here? > Remember the modularity goal - we want people to be able to take this > stuff and plug-n-play with whatever they want. If for whatever > reason they wanted to plug in Sun's class library, why would we want > to prevent that? I don't see any reason for wanting to prevent that. But I don't see why you should go out of your way to enable it, if it means implementing undocumented proprietary interfaces. And it does. /Sven
