At 02:43 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Gilbert Carl Herschberger II wrote:
>About CjOS
>I believe it is important to maintain a clear separation of kernel and
>virtual machine. Clear separation is required to build a cross-platform
>virtual machine that runs on JOS, Linux and Windows kernels. Clear
>separation is required to build a virtual machine as a plug-in for a
>re-usable JOS kernel.
>
>A CjOS-compatible virtual machine uses the standard C library as an
>interface to the kernel. It works on Linux and Windows. When the CjOS
>kernel implements the standard C library, a CjOS-compatible virtual machine
>will run on CjOS kernel.
I think this depends on your goals for a JOS. Monolithic kernels are
faster and so if JOS is to be its own operating system, it makes sense to
create a monolithic kernel/jvm/class libraries image. Separation of the
elements only serves to slow down the overall system. For the transition
period before jos is a full os, a portable jvm may have some
advantages. I'm unsure if the time and effort needed to create a portable
and fast jvm/kernel interface will pay back in terms of helping the jos
project proceed though.
If the research for JOS itself only resides above the portable jvm, then
you might as well just use whatever jvm happens to be on your host platform
(allowing best of breed usage across platforms). Java itself should
provide the necessary portability between jvm's. Research in getting a jvm
to work fastest/most efficiently/etc will almost be guaranteed to be
tightly tied to the underlying kernel and hardware and I'm unsure if you
can get many benefits if you also constrain yourself to be portable at the
same time...
-iain
_______________________________________________
Kernel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
