Re: JOS

[arenn]

Brian Jones (address@hidden) wrote:
> The following article was interesting to me.  I don't know what the
> state of the JOS project is or who our liason is.  Could someone from
> that project bring us up to date with respect to this email referenced
> below?
> 
> http://www.jos.org/pipermail/arch/1999-December/000358.html

It is interesting.  If I might extract their points:

1.  They think that replacement classes should be written in an alternate
namespace, then ported over when completed.  This certainly solves some
chicken and egg problems, but it creates new ones of its own.  I don't
object to that approach, but what we currently have seems to be working
fine.

2.  Classpath/libgcj merger.  No impact to JOS except that perhaps
JOS could be compiled at some point.

3.  VM specific aspects of Classpath.  Yes, we have them.  I don't see
any way around them.  And as noted, we do keep them separate from the
main tree.

This is what I gather after a very brief review.

-- 
Aaron M. Renn (address@hidden) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/