From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 29 1999 - 14:11:40 EST
>
> Godmar Back wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > I consulted with the kaffe core team and we decided to not apply
> > this patch.
>
> Could you be more specific with "core team". Tim? Piter? Who?
>
The kaffe core team at this time includes the people mentioned in
kaffe/AUTHORS:
Tim Wilkinson
Peter Mehlitz
Godmar Back
Archie Cobbs
Alexandre Oliva
Edouard Parmelan
>
> Ok, I'll contact him, thanks.
> But about "we also" - didn't I asked about these changes before?
> There were no discussions in kaffe core team when I asked first
> time? IMHO, it whould be more polite to say me about
> rejecting these changes before I started to do them :-|
I am sorry if we misled you.
Changes I would accepted are those that would have made kaffe more
modular, without committing to any particular way of extending it.
As an aside, the reason why Sun rejected Myer's PolyJ proposal
was that it introduced changes to the VM. Instead, they favor
GJ as a way of introducing genericity in Java, because it did
not change the VM.
>
> This changes ARE NOT KIEV SPECIFIC. Period.
>
They are specific to your way of extending signatures, bytecode
definitions, etc. I do not know whether the term "kiev specific"
describes that since I am not following your work.
>
> I do not think this is a problem ;-). I mean GPL. But splitting
> a project is really the problem. It's the last
> thing I wish to do.
>
You cannot split something that has not been sewn together.
Each project needs to have a clear objective; kaffe's objective is to
be a Java-compatible replacement for Java as defined by Sun.
Your objective is to extend Java with closures and method references.
These are different projects. We do not split anything here, IMO.
> > Another possibility you have is build your extended kaffe in a separate
> > library, such as libkaffekiev.a, and link the main program with
> > an existing kaffe installation like so -lkaffekiev -lkaffevm.
>
> You see the patches, and you know that this is impossible.
> How, to hell, can I patch constant pool without a call to
> my method from exactly defined place? It's not an additional
> native class method, it's the virtual machine functionality.
Actually, I don't know that it is impossible. You simply replace
the files you don't like in libkaffevm.a with your own which you
include in libkiev (or whatever you want to call it). The C linker
will use the first file that satisfies a given reference.
>
> So, why do you decided to make JVM ?
> What's so good with java? Why do you like it?
>
Personally, I like that it is a simple language that does not
have such constructs as closures and method references.
I'm afraid I don't have more time to discuss this now.
Maybe other members of the core team can voice their opinions.
- Godmar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:53 EDT