W liście z pon, 02-12-2002, godz. 08:18, Ola Lundqvist pisze: > On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 09:50:36AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote: > > >>>>> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ola> Programs must depend on java-virtual-machine (because they > > Ola> will need it in order to run). > > > > Given's Dalibor Topic's comment on this list > > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), should we > > declare java[12]-runtime to be a superset of java-virtual-machine and > > just have packages depend on it instead. Has anyone tried using > I'd say no. > > > Kaffe's classes against SableVM's JVM? > > Have not tried.
For the basic classes it surely won't work.
And not only in case of SableVM and Kaffe classpath.
It won't work probably for almost any not "natural" combination
of classpath and JVM. It is because there is an interface between
JVM and _it's_ classpath which is not really that standarized
to allow you full exchangability.
It however _may_ be possible (in future) for JVMs that use GNU Classpath
- if the project decides for some common inteface to JVMs. That's it.
Normally - you won't be able to switch basic classpath for free.
Regards
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
