1 |
2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
2 |
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Andrew John Hughes |
3 |
> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
4 |
>> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
5 |
>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Andrew John Hughes |
6 |
>>> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
7 |
>>>> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
8 |
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Andrew John Hughes |
9 |
>>>>> <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
10 |
>>>>>> 2008/9/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@×××××.com>: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> <snip> |
13 |
> |
14 |
>>>>>> given it doesn't yet have a complete implementation of even 1.5. |
15 |
>>>>> |
16 |
>>>>> if sun had honoured it's agreement to allow access to the TCK by open |
17 |
>>>>> source projects, then harmony (and the free JVMs) would have had |
18 |
>>>>> certified 1.5 implementations a year ago and (most likely) 1.6 ones as |
19 |
>>>>> well by now. this is a political issue, not a code one. |
20 |
>>>>> |
21 |
>>>> |
22 |
>>>> I seriously doubt that, given it took OpenJDK a year to pass the 1.6 |
23 |
>>>> TCK, despite |
24 |
>>>> being based on a codebase, the majority of which has passed as part of |
25 |
>>>> the proprietary work. |
26 |
>>> |
27 |
>>> you'd be surprised :-) |
28 |
>>> |
29 |
>>> at least one major corporation has taken a derived work based on |
30 |
>>> harmony codebase through the TCK |
31 |
>>> |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> Is this the TreeMap? If so, it's one class which they modified heavily |
34 |
>> themselves |
35 |
>> so that it worked as part of 1.6. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> no: one of the major alternative TCK'd JVMs is derived from harmony code |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
Well I take it this isn't a Free JVM, as IcedTea6 is the only one I |
41 |
know of that has |
42 |
passed a JCK. As you say JVM and not JDK, I take it we are talking about the |
43 |
same TCK i.e. the JCK? |
44 |
|
45 |
There was a JDK that had passed the JCK from which IcedTea6 was very |
46 |
'substantially derived'. It didn't mean there was no work to be done. |
47 |
|
48 |
>>> and ask yourself if google would have based andriod on harmony unless |
49 |
>>> it worked... |
50 |
>>> |
51 |
>> |
52 |
>> I didn't say it didn't work, I said it wasnt' likely to pass the TCK |
53 |
>> without a lot of work. |
54 |
>> You could of course link the Harmony class library up to HotSpot, |
55 |
>> apply for the OpenJDK6 TCK |
56 |
>> to certify that combination and prove me wrong. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> would that i could :-) |
59 |
> |
60 |
|
61 |
You can; check the OpenJDK TCK FAQ. Using HotSpot as the VM |
62 |
would count as substantially derived from OpenJDK. |
63 |
|
64 |
> sun has been saying 'not yet' to harmony certification for a number of |
65 |
> years. (just FTR it's not just harmony but any alternative FOSS JVM.) |
66 |
> |
67 |
|
68 |
I know; GNU Classpath went through all this before Harmony even existed. |
69 |
|
70 |
> - robert |
71 |
> |
72 |
> |
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
Andrew :-) |
78 |
|
79 |
Support Free Java! |
80 |
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK |
81 |
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath |
82 |
http://openjdk.java.net |
83 |
|
84 |
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) |
85 |
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 |