From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9500 invoked by alias); 8 May 2009 10:13:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 9491 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2009 10:13:05 -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; Fri, 08 May 2009 10:12:58 +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 n48ACuct024112; Fri, 8 May 2009 06:12:56 -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 n48ACtqa006799; Fri, 8 May 2009 06:12:55 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (vpn-12-111.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.111]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n48ACqbx001437; Fri, 8 May 2009 06:12:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0405A4.3020404@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081009) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew John Hughes CC: Mark Wielaard , 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> <4A031855.3030505@redhat.com> <1241718259.3769.36.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905071722m4ac664fft7293bf91b78df804@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0905071722m4ac664fft7293bf91b78df804@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/msg00034.txt.bz2 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.