Re: javax.naming work (Classpath vs ClasspathX)

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:45:12PM +0100, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> The Classpath project is never going to be the sort of thing a user
> just downloads.
> 
> The Classpath project is mainly a downstream supplier of class
> librarys to VM implementations.
> 
> As such the Classpath project exists to manage the development of
> that code base.  
But that does not mean that a user could not download a new release of
Classpath to use with the VM they are using. Currently Debian (sid)
comes with 3 (!) different versions of Classpath (gcj, orp and kissme).

This means that we do have a challenge (or problem if you like).
We have to work on defining the Classpath/VM interface better to
keep the differences between the projects as small as possible.

We are currently trying to get libgcj and Classpath as close as possible.
When we finish that it will be much easier to make a large common
codebase between the different free JVMs. There will be small differences
as all VMs will implement the Classpath/VM interface a little different.
But we will be able to share the largest part of the code. And users
should be free to change (or download) that part of the Classpath libraries
as they like.

> The ClasspathX project is also a downstream supplier of class libs to
> VM implementations.
> 
> The two projects are separate because it's easier to organise
> resources that way.

Is it really easier to split the resources? I really have to think about
this. It does not feel like such a great idea to split the few people that
we have working on this stuff between different projects, CVS trees and
mailinglists. Especially since they are all GNU projects.

> PS Sorry some of my responses are a bit delayed. I've just become a
> dad!
Great! Congratulations.

Cheers,

Mark
-- 
Stuff to read:
    <http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore