Re: icedtea status?
Egon Willighagen writes:
> On Jan 7, 2008 10:22 AM, Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org> wrote:
> > 2008/1/7, Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>:
> > > I understand, but do we really have other possible ways?
> >
> > Not moving packages that work only with icedtea to main at the moment.
>
> What are the timelines of IcedTea and gcj with respect to the next
> Debian release?
>
> Out of curiosity (haven't been keeping as tuned in as I would have
> liked):
>
> Has IcedTea (IT) matured enough to be ready before the next Debian
> release, and would it therefore make sense to replace gcj with IT
> as default JVM? For example, it is reasonable to expect IT to be
> ported to the same platforms as gcj currently has?
Yes, it is reasonable, but it'll be some time before it's ready.
IcedTea is good on x86 Linux, and it runs OK on PPC, but is
interpreter only. Getting good performence with IcedTea on all the
platforms to which gcj has been ported will be harder.
> What are the plans of the gcj (/Classpath) community with respect
> to coverage of the J5/6 language?
gcj is already v5 language compatible, and the library is complete
enough for general use.
> That is, what advantages does IT have over gcj (and vice versa),
> now and in, say, 6 months?
The core problem with IcedTea at the present time is that it's *too*
advanced: it's a pre-release of Java 1.7. To quote the README,
"At this time the build from which IcedTea was constructed corresponds
to an early build of JDK 7. When JDK 7 is complete it will implement
the Java SE 7 Platform Specification. Work on that specification is
underway, but far from final. Any APIs in the JDK 7 implementation,
whether new or old, are therefore subject to minor adjustments, major
revisions, or even outright removal between now and the time that the
Java SE 7 Platform Specification is finalized."
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
Reply to: