Re: Why MIDP, not PP? (was Re: MIDP 2.0 beta for palmOne devices now available)

> I think IBMs virtual machine comment was interesting. If you are using
> different Java Virtual Machines then this WILL result in different
threading
> models.
>
> For example even the Monty VM has a different threading model to the KVM.
>
> This leads unfortunately to UNPORTABLE code (see posting from Nokia 6600
> developers)

Code that depends on specific threading models is unportable, yes, but it's
not the VM's fault. Everyone should spend some time reading Doug Lea's
concurrency book to understand how to write portable concurrent code.

> The future is ultimately in a totally portable CDC environment. Surely
this
> means locking down the Virtual Machine though doesn't it?

Here's what I don't understand from that assertion... the threading model
used by J2SE has changed over the years depending on the platform. What's
different about that? If the J2SE threading model hasn't been locked down,
why lock down the J2ME model?

> I thought originally that CDC ran through a CVM?
>
> We really will loose portability if people all use different Virtual
> Machines for their CDC ports.

See J2ME Fallacy #3, which I've just updated to further clarify things:

http://www.ericgiguere.com/j2me/fallacies.html

Eric

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxx and include in the body
of the message "signoff KVM-INTEREST".  For general help, send email to
listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxx and include in the body of the message "help".