[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Thoughts on 'reference classes'
From: |
Aaron M. Renn |
Subject: |
Re: Thoughts on 'reference classes' |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:40:58 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
Brian Jones (address@hidden) wrote:
> > I'm a VM implementer too and I have a few comments. One general
> > point is that the current GNU Classpath version is 0.05, this
> > suggests that it isn't mature yet so I think VM implementers should
> > expect that the VM interface isn't yet stable. BTW, personally I
> > think that 0.05 is a way too low number for the current state of
> > affairs, but maybe I'm just reading too much into the number ;-)
>
> I don't like it either, but we have this long standing thing of making
> 1.0 a full 1.1 (+++) release. Aaron's recent email speaks to this
> really well.
If we are going to go forward with 1.0 being a Java 1.1 complete
version, then two things I'd add to the list to get done before heading
that direction:
o Solidify the JVM interface. If we are going to fundamentally rethink
it, the sooner the better.
o Figure out the JNI/CNI situation and merge the native backends with gcj.
I don't think we'd be well served to be making these sorts of major
re-architectings in a post-1.0 world. Esp. those that we know we have
to do (the VM interface might not fall in this space).
> > And finally, here is an example of how some of the requirements can be
> > very different: My VM (http://ikvm.net) is built on top of .NET, so I
> > want to use the .NET class libraries for I/O, but the current
> > java.io.FileDescriptor uses an int as the native handle, while I want
> > the use a reference to a .NET stream object.
>
> This is an assumption that isn't even valid under all flavors of UNIX;
> think 64 bit file systems for example. Perhaps Aaron will be able to
> tackle this.
This is something that should definitely be done as part of the CNI/JNI
merger.
--
Aaron M. Renn (address@hidden) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/