 | | Re: interest in JVM porting effort
|
| Aaah, good points. Do we have a preliminary list of packages that we'll need? Actually, it's easier to pick things that aren't needed and then complement it. java.awt is right out, as is java.applet. The same thing can be said for java.beans, (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: interest in JVM porting effort
|
| (...) Actually, there are some things in java.math that should be there. I would expect we would have two sets of classes -- those which are built into the JVM port (ie, those required for operation like Object, Thread, etc) and those which can be (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: interest in JVM porting effort
|
| I was merely ruminating on packages that might provide interesting interfaces/classes, and packages that we can toss out of hand. I wasn't trying to imply (although my post did seem that way) that we should implement ALL of java.io, just that parts (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: interest in JVM porting effort
|
| (...) Ok, that sounds reasonable. John A. Tamplin Traveller Information Services jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way 256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801 -- Did you check the web site first?: (URL) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
