Re: Implementing Harmony's VM Interface

Hi Fernando,

As much as I'd like to discuss the matter, I think that it would not be
productive:

1- I need to express why I prefer one to the other; it's not relevant.
   We are facing a technical problem: we must hook SableVM and Harmony.
   There are 2 alternatives:
    a) Adapt Harmony to SableVM.
    b) Adapt SableVM to Harmony.

   Option "a" would take more time as it entails long discussions on the
   Harmony development list, and getting into all kind of formal
   procedures (signing / faxing documents, etc.).

   Option "b" only requires modifying code in our repository; simple and
   efficient!

2- It would be waste of time, as it wouldn't contribute anything to the
   SableVM code base.  :-)

3- It would reopen a can of worms and trigger yet another flame
   war.  [My views on the VMI were partly expressed on the Classpath
   mailing-list, long ago.  Classpath rejected my views, so this closes
   the chapter.]

4- I trust IBM's VM specialists to design a good VMI.  I have no
   philosophical trouble adapting SableVM to it.

So, to summarize: I only accidentally expressed a very personal opinion
on a SableVM development list.  Just take it for what it is.

What we need, now, is technical contributions to the SableVM code base. :-)

Have fun!

Etienne

Fernando Lozano wrote:
> If you have some spare time, could you drop a few lines about
> differences between Classpath and VMI interfaces? By the number of JVMs

-- 
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.            http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
SableVM-devel mailing list
SableVM-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://sablevm.org/lists/control/listinfo/sablevm-devel