|Subject:||Re: Aicas again|
|Date:||Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:02:23 +0100|
|User-agent:||Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013)|
I doubt that will change much for Darwin, either way, since Darwin is different enough from Linux to trigger portability issues. The same would be the case if GNU Classpath had more developers using Cygwin, which also gets regularly broken, in my experience, and will get regularly broken in the future no matter what approach to portability layers we take.
Runtimes that care about niche platforms like Darwin, Cygwin, Solaris, or eCos are at any time able to write and maintain their own code for the native layer anyway thanks to the VM interface layer, and several runtimes seem to be working fine that way. I think the interesting question is where to draw the line what needs to be included in GNU Classpath (and at what cost) and what doesn't.
I believe we'll be able to draw a clearer line once the last native layer experiment is over, but I haven't been following the discussion closely enough to be able to tell if it is over by now, or if the current state of afairs is some transition state to something else.
cheers, dalibor topic
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|