Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[rob pike]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 129 bytes --]

That implementation artifact is a part of the existing implementations, though,
which complicates the porting issue.

-rob


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2295 bytes --]

From: Richard Miller <miller@hamnavoe.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:28:19 0100
Message-ID: <20011025155611.6D19D19A25@mail.cse.psu.edu>

> Java's peculiar insistence that class structure be wired into the source
> file structure

This is just an implementation artifact; it doesn't have to be done that way.
The Java language specification says (7.2):

"Each host determines how packages, compilation units, and subpackages are
created and stored ... The packages may be stored in a local file system in
simple implementations of the Java platform.  Other implementations may use
a distributed file system or some form of database to store source and/or
binary code."

Even if classes are stored one per file, there's no insistence that file names
be identical to class names.  (There couldn't be, because class names can contain
non-ASCII Unicode characters which many operating systems -- Plan 9 excepted! --
can't cope with.)  All that's required is a mapping between them.

-- Richard Miller

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[Ozan Yigit]

rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes:


> That implementation artifact is a part of the existing implementations,
> though, which complicates the porting issue.

perhaps a fresh implementation is more appropriate.

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[rob pike]

The problem lies mostly in the libraries.  Who's going to reimplement
that enormous pile of, ahem, software.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ozan Yigit <oz@blue.cs.yorku.ca>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?


> rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes:
> 
> 
> > That implementation artifact is a part of the existing implementations,
> > though, which complicates the porting issue.
> 
> perhaps a fresh implementation is more appropriate.
> 

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[David Gordon Hogan]

> Java's peculiar insistence that class structure be wired into the source
> file structure, coupled with the
> StylisticChoiceOfNamingObjectsWithLongWindedRunOnRedundantUnreadableConfusingNames
> means that you need the new 9P to get a JVM going.

And a new fileserver (though you can use u9fs).

And a bucket...

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[Richard Miller]

> Java's peculiar insistence that class structure be wired into the source
> file structure

This is just an implementation artifact; it doesn't have to be done that way.
The Java language specification says (7.2):

"Each host determines how packages, compilation units, and subpackages are
created and stored ... The packages may be stored in a local file system in
simple implementations of the Java platform.  Other implementations may use
a distributed file system or some form of database to store source and/or
binary code."

Even if classes are stored one per file, there's no insistence that file names
be identical to class names.  (There couldn't be, because class names can contain
non-ASCII Unicode characters which many operating systems -- Plan 9 excepted! --
can't cope with.)  All that's required is a mapping between them.

-- Richard Miller

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[Latchesar Ionkov]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:44:28AM +0000, Matt Senecal said:
> Not to raise the spectre of Java over Plan 9, but has there been any attempt
> to create a Plan 9 JVM that adheres to the Java specs 100%?

I am porting CVM virtual machine (http://java.sun.com/products/cdc/cvm/) to
Plan9. CVM is J2EE compliant and its source looks much better than the JVM
one. I don't have much free time and my interest on the port is not
consistent, so there is nothing to show. So far I ported the most difficult
parts of the HPI (threads, locks and JNI). My current excuse are the
restrictions of the filenames. I am waiting for 9P2000 :) 

	Lucho

Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[rob pike]

Java's peculiar insistence that class structure be wired into the source
file structure, coupled with the
StylisticChoiceOfNamingObjectsWithLongWindedRunOnRedundantUnreadableConfusingNames
means that you need the new 9P to get a JVM going.

-rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Matt Senecal <msenecal@inri.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 4:44 AM
Subject: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?


> Not to raise the spectre of Java over Plan 9, but has there been any attempt
> to create a Plan 9 JVM that adheres to the Java specs 100%?
> 

[9fans] Java for Plan 9?

[Matt Senecal]

Not to raise the spectre of Java over Plan 9, but has there been any attempt
to create a Plan 9 JVM that adheres to the Java specs 100%?