Uncle George wrote:
>
> 1) I am not a member of java-linux-porting@blackdown. They are a private porting
>club.
Then you should be talking to Sun, not java-linux.
> 2) I have been porting the Javasoft's non-commercial JDK source for a number of
>years.. But just for for alpha/linux.
And your point is...?
> 3) I have also been a member of java-linux@blackdown for a number of years.
And your point is...?
> 4) the change of anything in '.java', including the lp ->lpr, would violate your
>notion, sorry , interpretation of the license requirements
Okay, after Juergen's post on this, I can see how this could be argued
as "platform-dependent". The size of an int, though, is specified by the
Java Language Specification and therefore changing it would, as Cees
deGroot pointed out, result in a version of Java which would not be
compatible with other platforms' implementations.
> 5) In the land of alpha longs are 64bits as well as address pointers =>
>
> .java
> int lets_store_a_32_bit_address;
> private native int wheres_my_window();
> lets_store_a_32_bit_address = wheres_my_window();
> ......
>
> Native .c
> int wheres_my_window(blah*,blah ){
> long addr;
> addr = (Window) w;
> return(addr);
> }
> This particular example results in the truncation of a returned 64 bit 'c' address,
>into a 32bit '.java' variable/storage. u can of course change the 'c' routine to
>return all 64bits, but that will be, eventually, truncated by the jvm to 32bits. In
>the Land of "OSF/true64" for the Dec Alpha, u can convince the compiler to produce
>32bit pointer arithemetic, where long == 32bits. But the currently available
>linux/alpha compilers a long==pointer==64bits.
Your example is flawed in that you assume you should return an int from
wheres_my_window(blah*, blah). If you return a long, everything is fine,
since in the land of Java, long is defined as a 64-bit data type.
>
> 6) Actually complaining, or presenting my viewpoints does do some good. The whole
>linux-java community is not just java-linux-porting@blackdown. There are other linux
>folks out there, of which Sun pays little attention to. Cant imagine how the
>java-linux-porting folks got their commercial license, if it weren't for all of those
>complaining linux/Intel folks - in this forum, and in the Sun's bug-tracking system.
>
So does this mean you *are* attempting some communication with Sun?
> 7) I didn't ask u to set a reasonable fee, I just threw back ur statement as to what
>would be a reasonable fee be to port java/linux/alpha. After all sun did say that
>they support the linux community. I'm just waiting for the support that they had
>advertised.
>
The support that Sun "advertised" is there. All Sun said in the press
release from back in November was that they would provide some support
to the Blackdown efforts - not linux in general. Again, you should be
talking to Sun if you really have issues with this.
--
Jeff Galyan
http://www.anamorphic.com
http://www.sun.com
jeffrey dot galyan at sun dot com
talisman at anamorphic dot com
Sun Certified Java(TM) Programmer
======================================================================
Linus Torvalds on Microsoft and software development:
"... if it's a hobby for me and a job for you, why are you doing such a
shoddy job of it?"
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
Sun Microsystems, Inc., has no connection to my involvement with the
Mozilla Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
