From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
To: Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew@member.fsf.org>
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>, Chris Gray <chris.gray@kiffer.be>,
bmckinlay <bmckinlay@gmail.com>,
svferro <svferro@gmail.com>, java <java@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:13:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A0405A4.3020404@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905071722m4ac664fft7293bf91b78df804@mail.gmail.com>
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> The clause in the OpenJCK6 license which restricts its use to projects
> 'substantially derived' from OpenJDK (judgement of which is made
> secretly by Sun as part of the decision process) makes me very dubious
> about it being a test of the specification. It's very clearly a test
> of compatibility with the reference implementation provided by Sun and
> only JDKs derived from this reference implementation have ever passed
> it.
I don't believe this to be true, BTW: I know IBM have a clean room
implementation, and I think others do too.
> There are places where the specification is unclear and the TCK will
> resolve them in favour of how Sun chose to interpret the
> specification.
Right.
> I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but let's also not fool
> ourselves that this is all there is to being able to run Java
> applications.
Who would? This looks like a strawman argument to me.
> For me, keeping the tests a secret and only allowing them to be run
> against approved JDKs just makes me distrust the whole process. We
> know from our work on GNU Classpath and GCJ that many applications
> can be run without passing the TCK or even having a complete
> implementation of every API imaginable. Similarly, we know from
> working on IcedTea that there are issues above and beyond the bounds
> of TCK testing.
Of course.
Andrew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-08 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-07 14:31 Chris Gray
2009-05-07 15:29 ` Andrew John Hughes
2009-05-07 16:25 ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-07 16:32 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 17:10 ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-07 17:20 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 17:24 ` David Boreham
2009-05-07 17:34 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 17:44 ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-08 0:22 ` Andrew John Hughes
2009-05-08 10:13 ` Andrew Haley [this message]
2009-05-08 11:00 ` Mark Wielaard
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-06 20:43 Sal
2009-05-07 9:17 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 11:45 ` Bryce McKinlay
2009-05-07 13:25 ` Andrew John Hughes
2009-05-07 13:43 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 13:50 ` Bryce McKinlay
2009-05-07 20:24 ` Sal
2009-05-08 8:04 ` Robert Schuster
2009-05-08 10:08 ` Andrew Haley
2009-05-07 16:28 ` Mark Wielaard
2009-05-08 13:47 ` Robert Schuster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A0405A4.3020404@redhat.com \
--to=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=bmckinlay@gmail.com \
--cc=chris.gray@kiffer.be \
--cc=gnu_andrew@member.fsf.org \
--cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=svferro@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).