> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Hindess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > My feeling at the moment is that although drlvm and classlib are working > together[0], it is evident[1] that things are not really integrated. > I would prefer to see "real integration" before we break[0] things by > moving to 5.0. > > As Geir pointed out recently, we are not just a Class library project, > so perhaps a change of focus is warranted? Perhaps if we can agree a > set of prerequisite goals (involving our JVMs) for moving to 5.0, we can > ... err ... encourage this change of focus? > > My prerequisite goals would include things like: > > 1) Fix the (reasonable) 'hacks' that help us get this far with drlvm > integration - e.g. the static libhyprt.a for instance.[2] > > 2) Implement enough of the classlibadapter kernel classes such that > JCHEVM will run 'ant rebuild' in classlib[3]. We have some difficult > problems (thread attach) but there is also a lot of low hanging fruit in > terms of missing or incomplete methods. > > 3) Get drlvm loading with the Harmony launcher from Classlib so we > can have both drlvm and IBM VME around for testing. I think this is > important because it will make it easier for people to test with either > JVM.
Yes please! The 'ij.exe' confused the crap out of me the first time I saw it. Also, the Eclipse plugin that DRLVM builds doesn't work if you're using the 1.0.2 version from the snapshots (new version wins out). > > 4) Change the drlvm build so that its deploy tree layout has no classlib > files in it. So we can do ... > > 5) Create the top-level build that can combine the trimmed drlvm deploy > tree and the classlib deploy tree to produce a working jdk. (In much > the same way that we currently combine the classlib and IBM VME.) > I completely agree. Having the IBM VME be just a drop-in after a classlib build makes it so much easier for class library hackers. I don't mind flipping the build switch to 5.0 and bumping along with small increments, but DRLVM needs to be as easy to use as the IBM VME drop in is first. > 6) Pull out shared dependencies to top-level so we only need one copy. > > > At the moment, I think moving to 5.0 would increase the divide between > the JVMs and Classlib. > > In the meantime there is still plenty of work to do for those that, for > whatever reasons, don't find these tasks exciting enough - for instance, > the missing java.lang.Character/java.lang.Math methods[4]. > > Regards, > Mark. > > [0] Thanks Geir! > > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-651 > > [2] This isn't a criticism; I think these hacks can be justified. > > [3] I tried this the other day. It got to the second (non-comment) line > of the first ant script before crashing because ClassLoader.getResources() > isn't implemented yet. > > [4] http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk15- > harmony.html#pkg_java_lang > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
