* [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
@ 2001-10-24 8:44 Matt Senecal
2001-10-24 12:47 ` rob pike
2001-10-24 13:59 ` Latchesar Ionkov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Matt Senecal @ 2001-10-24 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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%?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
2001-10-24 8:44 [9fans] Java for Plan 9? Matt Senecal
@ 2001-10-24 12:47 ` rob pike
2001-10-24 13:59 ` Latchesar Ionkov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rob pike @ 2001-10-24 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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%?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
2001-10-24 8:44 [9fans] Java for Plan 9? Matt Senecal
2001-10-24 12:47 ` rob pike
@ 2001-10-24 13:59 ` Latchesar Ionkov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Latchesar Ionkov @ 2001-10-24 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
@ 2001-10-25 11:28 Richard Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Richard Miller @ 2001-10-25 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
@ 2001-10-25 17:06 rob pike
2001-10-26 9:24 ` Ozan Yigit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: rob pike @ 2001-10-25 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
2001-10-25 17:06 rob pike
@ 2001-10-26 9:24 ` Ozan Yigit
2001-10-26 10:59 ` rob pike
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ozan Yigit @ 2001-10-26 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
2001-10-26 9:24 ` Ozan Yigit
@ 2001-10-26 10:59 ` rob pike
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rob pike @ 2001-10-26 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
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.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Java for Plan 9?
@ 2001-10-29 21:32 David Gordon Hogan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-10-29 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> 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...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-29 21:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-24 8:44 [9fans] Java for Plan 9? Matt Senecal
2001-10-24 12:47 ` rob pike
2001-10-24 13:59 ` Latchesar Ionkov
2001-10-25 11:28 Richard Miller
2001-10-25 17:06 rob pike
2001-10-26 9:24 ` Ozan Yigit
2001-10-26 10:59 ` rob pike
2001-10-29 21:32 David Gordon Hogan
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).