Re: Cleanly defining the VM interface

[Brian Jones]

"Jeroen Frijters" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Holmes wrote:
> > Just some feedback from someone trying to integrate Classpath 
> > into a VM.
> [...]
> > Unfortunately how the choice of making a class part of the 
> > core that the VM must implement, versus writing it in terms 
> > of VMxxx classes, versus declaring it to have native methods, 
> > is made is not clear. I'm assuming that the general intent is 
> > to do something like this:
> > 
> > - if it can be implemented in Java source then code it in Java source
> > - it it can be implemented in standard JNI calls then make it native
> > - if it's really VM specific then make it a call to VMxxx.foo
> > 
> > right?
> 
> I think we're in a transitional phase, the idea is to move all native
> methods into VMxxx classes.
> 
> > From our perspective there should be no native methods in the 
> > main Classpath classes but only calls to VMxxx methods, which 
> > then may be native.
> > This additional indirection would make it easier to adapt 
> > classpath to VM's without JNI. I realize this may conflict 
> > with the general view.
> 
> I definitely agree and I think (or is that hope ;-)) that this is also
> the consensus.

Any patches which perform this 'move' operation are greatly
appreciated.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>