Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath

[Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 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 <chris.gray@kiffer.be>:
>>>>> 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)? <G, D & R>
>>>>>
>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

This is FUD, plain and simple.  What evidence do you have of programs
that require Java behaviour at odds with the JCK?

Andrew.