My thinking is that we should support the convention, but we're also
trying to create another convention with VMI.
Would the vmi.dll be usable by other implementors?
geir
Tim Ellison wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
We are doing this to conform to some convention, right? If the
covention for jvm.dll is a standard invocation API, why would we also
bundle in the harmony-specific VMI API?
No, take a look at the exports from a jvm.dll, it is the standard
invocation API + vm-specific APIs. I suggest we do the same (though in
our case it is the two additional Harmony-specific VMI functions).
Why not keep that separate and try to push that forward as a convention
as well?
Why try create another convention when there is one in use in the wild?
Regards,
Tim
