Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby
Sebastien Delafond dijo [Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:59:00PM -0700]:
> On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is
> > important for jruby...
> to have 2 versions of jruby available ? I guess so you can at least, for
> instance, try the new one on your existing jruby code without removing
> the old one, for instance ?
> Are you advocating for only one instance of jruby at all times in the
> archive ? If so, why ?
Do the Jruby versions somehow map to the Ruby versions? If I'm not
mistaken, Jruby (and IronRuby) versions aimed at compatibility with
specific Ruby language releases - and the only Ruby language
specification is the main implementation itself.
So, does JRuby 1.2 provide a bigger/different API than 1.0? Which one
is closer to the main implementation 1.8? 1.9?
Now, if JRuby 1.2 (say) implements 1.9 and JRuby 1.0 implements 1.8,
possibly the (so far main) implementation should be renamed to only
provide libruby1.8, so that also JRuby can satisfy it?
Gunnar Wolf - firstname.lastname@example.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF