On Nov 9, 2007 12:09 PM, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,

Hi!

> I am VERY excited about this project. The idea has been dominating my mind
> for some time now and it's time I put it into action.

Good to hear!

> This would be my first OS [...]

No problem, it's my first OS too.. it takes some effort to get up to
speed but it's definitely worth it, i've already had several
situations with other projects that i could explain with the
experience i gained learning to build an OS ;)


> Mono is absolutely fantastic; but it was designed, like .Net Framework, for
> a classical operating system like Windows\Linux\BSD. We just have to be
> REALLY careful about how much we copy 'n paste from it lest we lock
> ourselves into writing an OS Kernel like Windows\Linux\BSD. [...]

Definitely.
It gets worse actually, the whole domain/assembly design of .net and
mono seems to kind of assume that there's another OS layer underneath
with things like processes.. which doesn't necesarily have to be the
case in a managed OS
Afterall, processes and domains overlap a great deal when it comes to
functionality.
We probably have to have some sort of internal 'domain/process'
classes and expose functionality
trough an external 'domain' class that the applications actually see..

It still requires some thought, nothing is set in stone as it is...


> Currently the AOT namespace is 'dirty'. We don't find ourselves writing
> against a WindowsXP.Forms.Form class: instead it is tucked away /neatly/ in
> System.Windows.Forms.Form. Before our codebase gets really big lets think
> about what the namespaces should really be: i.e. Architecture.Core instead
> of SharpOS.AOT. Obviously it really doesn't matter what we use is the
> Kernel, because no-one ever calls it using 'normal' .Net methodologies. Just
> my 2c.

Right now the project has been for the most part been evolutionary
since we're doing pretty new stuff (at least for us anyway), so don't
be too suprised if some part of the project aren't as neat as they
could be.
We definitely could use some cleaning up and documentation in a lot of places.
As for renaming namespaces into other namespaces; if we give them more
descriptive names, i'm all for it.



> Came up with an temp solution for the JITter. The MS CLR also supports
> precompiled MSIL (create these using the ILASM tool). So shouldn't we? I.e.
> [...]

Well we have no IO yet, nor a JIT compiler.. i'm not entirely sure
what problem you're trying to solve here...
We could use a function which can execute a binary resource perhaps..
Might be usefull to start with drivers.. (especially the IO driver! ;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
SharpOS-Developers mailing list
SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers

Reply via email to