From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 731 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 17:44:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 708 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 17:44:45 -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 17:44:33 +0000 Received: from fedora.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.31]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1M27ds-0002xs-FI; Thu, 07 May 2009 19:44:21 +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: <4A031855.3030505@redhat.com> References: <17c6771e0905070828n441803edx6cf6291ed9b01e5e@mail.gmail.com> <1241713494.3769.6.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> <1241716199.3769.16.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A031855.3030505@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1241718259.3769.36.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/msg00028.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > 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: > >>>>> > >>>> 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 doesn't make it not a serious option. It just means that > you don't want to do it, and you don't think that the gcj > community should do it. It's still a serious option. I think we agree. Let just s/serious//. It is an option. Just not one that is IMHO feasible nor desirable for a free software project. > > :) 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. > > This is FUD, plain and simple. What evidence do you have of programs > that require Java behaviour at odds with the JCK? That is exactly my point. And you cannot prove the other way, that the JCK tests behavior that is actually specified and not just a test for an implementation detail. So we would be raising some smoke screen with no way for the end user or our fellow hackers to do anything with except to just trust those behind the NDA. They won't even be able to tell if it is something that just happens on the particular setup that runs the TCK or not. Cheers, Mark