Archie Cobbs wrote: > Enrico Migliore wrote: >>> The class library native code uses the Harmony portlib to access much of >>> the OS-specific code covered in APR. Rather than rewrite those natives, >>> and loose the additional characteristics of the portlib, it would make >>> more sense to implement the portlib on APR if that were desirable. >>> >> I think I'm missing something: last week, we all agreed on "adopting" >> the APR library for the native >> stuff, except for the windowing subsystem. That means to me that all >> the functions of JCHEVM and the Harmony, >> that need to access an OS/platform service (filesystem, network, etc.) >> should call the APR library. > > I think you two are in heated agreement. There are two different > things: jchevm and classlib. For jchevm, it makes sense to port it > to APR directly. For classlib (i.e., classlib's native code), it makes > sense to port classlib's "portlib" layer to APR, rather than discarding > portlib.
I'd hope that jchevm would consider using the portlib too; I have good reason to believe that the portlib is well suited to the needs of a VM implementation ;-) It will be interesting to see how Artem's experiments with APR work-out. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
