Re: Patch: FYI: Logger -vs- stack trace

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Yes, I agree, we should parameterize this on the VM.
> This isn't exactly a good time to do it though.

I would have hoped you had designed it from the start with this in mind.

> And, as you know, Classpath changed its stack trace implementation
> again, and we still haven't caught up with this.

Yeah, and I even proposed another way to deal with it (which was shot
down by Jeroen).  It would be good to see if we can discuss some of the
platform/runtime interface issues at Fosdem next weekend. Or at least
make a list of things that need work in this area. I have added it to
http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/Fosdem2005

> So, my thinking is, we should delay worrying about this until after
> 4.0 is branched.  Then we can look seriously at the proposal to use
> an unmodified Classpath with only relatively minor gcj-specific
> changes.

OK. If the goal is to do it at a certain point and it isn't postponed
indefinitely. Just want to make sure we are going to make real progress
towards more unification and less "little" divergences.

> AFAIK, all of it.  My impression is that jonas relies on corba
> actually working.  I haven't actually tried playing around with this
> though.

Ah, OK. Seems it is time then to reopen the hunt for free org.omg
classes then.

Cheers,

Mark

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part