On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Andrew John Hughes
<gnu_andrew@...> wrote:
> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@...>:
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Andrew John Hughes
>> <gnu_andrew@...> wrote:
>>> 2008/9/14 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@...>:
>>>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Andrew John Hughes
>>>> <gnu_andrew@...> wrote:
>>>>> 2008/9/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@...>:

<snip>

>>>>> given it doesn't yet have a complete implementation of even 1.5.
>>>>
>>>> if sun had honoured it's agreement to allow access to the TCK by open
>>>> source projects,  then harmony (and the free JVMs) would have had
>>>> certified 1.5 implementations a year ago and (most likely) 1.6 ones as
>>>> well by now. this is a political issue, not a code one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt that, given it took OpenJDK a year to pass the 1.6
>>> TCK, despite
>>> being based on a codebase, the majority of which has passed as part of
>>> the proprietary work.
>>
>> you'd be surprised :-)
>>
>> at least one major corporation has taken a derived work based on
>> harmony codebase through the TCK
>>
>
> Is this the TreeMap? If so, it's one class which they modified heavily
> themselves
> so that it worked as part of 1.6.

no: one of the major alternative TCK'd JVMs is derived from harmony code

>> and ask yourself if google would have based andriod on harmony unless
>> it worked...
>>
>
> I didn't say it didn't work, I said it wasnt' likely to pass the TCK
> without a lot of work.
> You could of course link the Harmony class library up to HotSpot,
> apply for the OpenJDK6 TCK
> to certify that combination and prove me wrong.

would that i could :-)

sun has been saying 'not yet' to harmony certification for a number of
years. (just FTR it's not just harmony but any alternative FOSS JVM.)

- robert