Re: Versions for java-virtual-machine
On Tuesday 28 September 1999, at 22 h 5, the keyboard of Daniel Barclay
<daniel@dsb.smart.net> wrote:
> A full Java implementation implements not just the language specification
> but also the Java virtual machine specification and the supposed API
> specification.
Right. For instance, kaffe, which is "just" a virtual machine, not a "full
Java implementation", implements the Java virtual machine specification.
> (Of course, Sun's Java API documentation, besides being quite incomplete
> even just for users (programmers), is nowhere near being a real
> specification. Come to think of it, even the Java Language Specification
> sucks as a specification.
Precisely my point. That's why, a few months ago when this issue was first
discussed, I disliked the idea of versioned virtual packages
(java-virtual-machine-1.1, etc).
> Anyway, I think we're going to have to refer to JDK version numbers
> to identify levels of Java support.
May be the JDK version numbers are under the SCSL? :-) More seriously, I do
not like this idea. This would mean we don't use the Specification, but a
specific implementation, worse, a non-free one.
Reply to: