--- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz > B. Prokopski wrote:
> > I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that > aside of Kaffe, > > the other free JVMs use indirectly (like gcj) or > directly one single > > source of it's classpath lisbrary - GNU Classpath. > I really doubt if this > > project has reached 80% of what java 1.2 > (especially in the area of > > graphical interfaces) should be. I think that *I* > would use GNU > > Classpath as the 100% here (then we can have JVMs > that support more > > than 100% ;-). But I don't really expect you to > write it down to > > the policy. > > Hmm. It it that bad. I was not aware of that > actually. In some way > we have to define java1-runtime in a good way. > Define it against > a moving target (like classpath) might not be a good > thing. On the > other hand it might be the best way... Well, seems like you guys are looking for some numbers ;) Check the japitools JDK API compatibility pages at http://rainbow.netreach.net/~sballard/japi/ > > As for my proposals, I think I'd do it this way: > > 1. Define exactly what requirements must be met > for JVM to be able > > to _legally_ provide java-virtual-machine, > java*-runtime etc. > > Then we can agree on that. The problem is to define > it... :( I don't understand the term 'legally' in this context. What legal requirements are there? best regards, dalibor topic __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
