From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17586 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 17:10:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 17577 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 17:10:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (80.101.103.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 May 2009 17:10:12 +0000 Received: from fedora.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.31]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1M276e-0002bz-AZ; Thu, 07 May 2009 19:10:01 +0200 Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrew Haley Cc: Andrew John Hughes , Chris Gray , bmckinlay , svferro , java In-Reply-To: <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> References: <17c6771e0905070828n441803edx6cf6291ed9b01e5e@mail.gmail.com> <1241713494.3769.6.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1241716199.3769.16.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:31 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 16:28 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > >> 2009/5/7 Chris Gray : > >>> Quoth Andrew John Hughes: > >>>>> Huh? I was assuming Java compatibility was the goal. > >>> Compatibility with the non-existent specification for Java 7, or with the > >>> equally non-existent JCK for Java 7 (for which there is no JSR)? > >>> > >> Neither; the JCK for OpenJDK6 which the builds of IcedTea in Fedora have passed: > >> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/ > > > > I don't think that is a serious option, that is only available under NDA > > and only granted to people who sign an SCA with Sun and even then access > > is only granted if Sun feels like it. > > So why is it not a serious option? Because it isn't a thing that a free software community can do collaboratively in the open and involves requiring proprietary software. Maybe a third party could do it for their own binary builds, but I don't see how we as a community can recommend it, nor would I want to recommend it myself. > > That said, adopting something like jigsaw for the core class library and > > then having the option to switch modules seems a fine idea. > > Compatibility is much more about running actually code than some opaque > > proprietary test suite. > > It's about *both*. All the JCK does is make sure you've implemented the > APIs as specified. :) Since the JCK is under NDA that claim is not verifiable. But you could say that the JCK assumes one particular interpretation yeah. Still, if a secret test suite would say things should work one way, but actual programs expect things differently I would go with not breaking existing stuff. Cheers, Mark