[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eclipse
From: |
Per Bothner |
Subject: |
Re: Eclipse |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:28:06 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 |
Tom Tromey wrote:
In fact, I think a release that is compatible with just JDK 1.0
> is kind of laughable at this date.
I agree. If complete-TCK-passing compatibility with something
is desirable, at least go for 1.1.x, since that matches what
MS used to ship (except for evil extensions, of course), and
since we already implement most (all?) of what 1.1 added.
I suspect the main thing missing at this point is a dependable
security implementation, including the verifier and the
SecurityManager, most of which realy isn't Classpath per se.
(On the other hand, if Tom's new verifier can share code between
the gcj compiler and runtime, maybe it can be parameterized
further so it can be plugged into other VMs?)
--
--Per Bothner
address@hidden http://per.bothner.com/
- Re: Eclipse, (continued)
- Re: Eclipse, Michael Koch, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Tom Tromey, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Tom Tromey, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Dalibor Topic, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Chris Burdess, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Dalibor Topic, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Arnaud Vandyck, 2004/10/26
- Re: Eclipse, Michael Koch, 2004/10/26
- Re: Eclipse, Arnaud Vandyck, 2004/10/26
- GNU JAXP integration and what should be in 1.0?, Mark Wielaard, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse,
Per Bothner <=
- Re: Eclipse, Tom Tromey, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Stuart Ballard, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Dalibor Topic, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Tom Tromey, 2004/10/25
- Re: Eclipse, Dalibor Topic, 2004/10/25
Re: Eclipse, Tom Tromey, 2004/10/25