[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Virtual Packages

"Stephen" == Stephen Zander <srz@mckesson.com> writes:
> Christian Leutloff <leutloff@sundancer.oche.de> writes:
>> better call it jvm - and include a version number with it as the
>> Virtual Machines for 1.0 and 1.1 differs much. There will be
>> different Java Virtual Machinches, i.e. the Sun JDK, Netscape
>> Navigator, kaffe.

> I presume you mean the foundation classes differ.  AFAIK, there
> aren't many many differences in the JVM definition between 1.0.2 &
> 1.1.x

Enough to count.  I think any reasonable jvm1.1 will run jvm1.0, but
the reverse is certainly not always true.

I think virtual package 'jvm1.0', 'jvm1.1', and even 'jdk1.0',
'jkd1.1' are useful and should be created.  While we're at it, maybe
we should kick up 'jvm1.2' and 'jdk1.2' too!

'jvm1.0' should be capable of running any Java VM Spec ver 1.0,
'jdk1.0' should give ability to compile any Java conforming to 1.0
spec, etc etc.

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: