From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21636 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 17:20:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 21623 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 17:20:33 -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 17:20:27 +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 n47HKQ37018666; Thu, 7 May 2009 13:20:26 -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 n47HKOJF013825; Thu, 7 May 2009 13:20:25 -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 n47HKMml021567; Thu, 7 May 2009 13:20:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4A031855.3030505@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:20:00 -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> <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> <1241716199.3769.16.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1241716199.3769.16.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/msg00025.txt.bz2 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 : >>>>> 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 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.