Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
No we didn't agree to do that Enrico, for the reasons I described
above.
Just to reinforce... no, we didn't agree to that.
I think that the notion leveraging APR for implementing the
portability layer for the VM was what we didn't disagree on. ( I
won't claim agreement...)
But that's way different than APR for the class lib portlib.
So you have to create a apr.IA32 class lib, don't you?
I think I don't understand the question.
Yes, we can do an implementation using APR, but what I thought was
driving this discussion was the idea that we could abandon portlib and
tie everything directly to the APR API.
Ok, I understand better the idea: no apr portlib but everything in the
jchecvm.
Using APR to implement the porting layer for the VM/classlib is just
peachy - it saves us oodles of work.
geir
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
geir
Regards,
Tim
