From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@gmx.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
Message-ID: <20011024095936.A14994@gmx.net>
References: <9r4ilv$8ac$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <9r4ilv$8ac$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil>; from msenecal@inri.com on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:44:28AM +0000
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:59:36 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0cca2f0e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

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