Re: JSP Servlet container / WEB server

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Erik Poupaert writes:
 > 
 > > Extending Java is not a bad idea, but there's no point if people
 > > can't move to gcj because we are not compatible.
 > 
 > I am totally with you with regards to being careful concerning
 > compatibility with the JDK. The point I was trying to make,
 > however, is that GCJ has unique benefits of its own; exactly by
 > being different from the JDK.
 > 
 > What's more, applications using Swing or EJB, that is, the bread
 > and butter of mainstream Java, are incompatible anyway. Swing cum
 > GCJ won't happen anytime soon, while EJB is so bytecode-oriented
 > that it won't either.

Why not?  What is the fundamental problem?

 > Expending effort in making it happen, is also not necessarily the
 > best use of resources. So, people interested in these application
 > areas won't move to GCJ anyway.
 > 
 > So, emphasizing and making compabitility at any cost the issue,

That is an absurd strawman.  No-one suggested such a thing.  

All that was suggested was finishing the security sandbox, which is
not a particularly difficult job to do.  

Once that is done a security audit of libgcj will be needed, which is
a much tougher job.  It's a worthwhile one though, because it
undoubtedly will reveal bugs.

 > and trying to move people who need it, will work against GCJ.

Andrew.