On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:54 AM, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
The simplest argument against it is: Its just not possible to use
the non-free runtime classlibraries with a free runtime. AFAIK, for
interaction between a runtime and the class library a VM interface is
needed. And thats not the same between the non-free and GNU classpath
derived runtimes.
Wolfgang
Hmm. I was under the impression that the VM interface had become
sufficiently compatible for a full compatibility layer to be
straightforward. Class libraries consist of classes, and since there
are
classes that work with both runtimes separately from any class
library,
I thought that differences in functionality between the free and
non-free environments was primarily due to differences between the
class
libraries, with the VM interfaces being relatively equal. If I was
mistaken, I am sorry.
The jni interface (and the newer jawt interface) should be compatible
with the non-free implementations. The interface VM/Classlib can't be
as
it is AFAIK not defined anywhere by SUN.
Ironic, since JNI is architecture-dependent. I thought that the
VM/Classlib interface was part of the official JVM spec to which GIJ
was coded.
For information about the VM interface of GNU classpath see:
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/docs/vmintegration.html
That page mainly talks about the use of the free class library with
various different JVMs, which is pretty much the reverse of what I was
suggesting. BTW, everywhere in my original mail where I used the term
GCJ, I was referring to GNU Classpath for Java, not GNU Compiler for
Java.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
