Re: JFORK: Or a reasonable response to the Sun SCSL

["Cris J. Holdorph" <holdorph@home.com>]

Seth R Arnold Writes:
> Chris, could you go into more detail why? I think the effort will be great,
> and the returns might be small. (I am not sure it is worth it...)
> 
> But, I think you are reading the idea of 'fork' incorrectly. It could be
> that I am also incorrectly interpreting it... The way I saw Ean's proposal,
> we would work on a free implementation based off of an earlier version of
> JDK that allows forks -- and we would implement java exactly as the spec
> suggests, keeping up with the changes to the sun jdk, and improving it where
> we can -- *NOT* the language, but the JDK.

After re-reading his message, he did not state what the "fork" would be.
So, he would have to provide clarification himself.

But I thought, his idea was, "because Java 2 is under SCSL ... lets try to
come up with a very 'Java 2-like' specification and then implement a JVM,
class libraries, etc. around it".

I admit that his message did *NOT* state that, but it is what I thought
he meant.

---- Cris J H

-- 
Cris J. Holdorph
holdorph@home.com