From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18715 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 16:32:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 18672 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 16:31:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 May 2009 16:31:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n47GVhsq005895; Thu, 7 May 2009 12:31:43 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n47GVfUv027003; Thu, 7 May 2009 12:31:42 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (vpn-14-156.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.156]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n47GVZWu009854; Thu, 7 May 2009 12:31:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 16:32:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081009) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard CC: Andrew John Hughes , Chris Gray , bmckinlay , svferro , java Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath References: <17c6771e0905070828n441803edx6cf6291ed9b01e5e@mail.gmail.com> <1241713494.3769.6.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1241713494.3769.6.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00023.txt.bz2 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? > 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. Andrew.