Hi, On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:28 +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:55:00PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > > Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:45:29 -0500, > > Barry Hawkins <barry@alltc.com> wrote: > > > > > Michael Koch wrote: > > > | On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > > > [...] > > > |>I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix > > > |>(Java Binary Interface). Some people like the name -bcabi because that > > > |>is what the GCJ folks tend to refer to it as. BC ABI: Binary Compatible > > > |>Application Binary Interface. I don't think bcabi is descriptive at all. > > > | > > > | -jbi is a bad name as none else on this planet knows the interface under > > > | this name I would prefer -bcabi (as this is the name its called > > > | upstream) or -gcj (to make clean where it comes from). > > > [...] > > > If upstream already has a name, we should adhere to that. We can't > > > reinvent the technical terminology of upstream sources because we don't > > > like it; that's what Microsoft is for. > > > > I think Ubuntu is going with the -jbi suffix, isn't it? ;-) > > Which would be a really bad choice. Yes, both -jbi and -bcabi are really bad choices because they are somewhat obscure technical terms that don't really help the users to know what is special about the package. In a future release the bcabi will also be the default abi used by gcj. And in cases where backwards (and forwards) compatability and seamless interoperability between native and interpreted byte code is wanted you will need to use this -findirect-dispatch technique always. And no, I am not proposing to use -indirect-dispatch as suggix :) IMHO the best suffix would be to just use -gcj for the natively compiled packages. That at least shows the user what the difference is and why the -gcj package is faster and less resource intensive. Because it was created using GCJ. Cheers, Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part