Re: JSP Servlet container / WEB server

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Erik Poupaert writes:
 > 
 > > > -- there's no reason fully compiled Java can't be just as
 > > > secure as a conventional VM.
 > 
 > That would require replicating important parts of the OS at the
 > programming language-level, as done in the JDK.

Sorry?  The Java sandbox is a fairly well-designed security model with
some good features.  A full implementation would significantly enhance
gcj.

 > Is that really the way to go?

Yes.

 > From a strategical point of view, GCJ could either develop unique
 > benefits, or else run after the JDK and end second-place
 > anyway. Developing unique benefits is not even that difficult, if
 > you think about it. There's quite some stuff you could not write
 > properly with the JDK, which you can with GCJ. Why not focus on
 > these areas?

Because our aim is to create a free Java.  This means that Java
programmers will be able to use a free compiler, one that they are
free to study and alter.  We will not help this goal by designing an
incompatible system, and in any case we do not have the resources to
design one.

Extending Java is not a bad idea, but there's no point if people can't
move to gcj because we are not compatible.

Andrew.