Hi gang, Just some soul-searching on a sunny wednesday morning (over here anyways)...
much of the traffic I see these days on harmony-dev (I'm through the back-log. Yay!) to me looks like lots of people in "violent agreement" and it prompts me to write messages like this, eg trying to help the people doing the actual work to reach consensus. I keep wondering whether I should actually send them (and try and fill this whole "mentor" (I *hate* that word. It reminds me of mr. Myagi from the movie "The Karate Kid". I identify more with the karate kid :-)) role, since this consensus thing in an online community is probably new to some of the harmony crew) or just let people sort it out on their own (and let meritocracy rule). If you have an opinion on this, please do let me know, and I might adjust behaviour accordingly (realistically, I learn slowly, but I do try! :-)).....its not like the incubator has any kind of "how to do mentoring" guide, nor is harmony a whole lot like the other projects in the incubator, so we're often just winging it.....thanks! cheers, LSD ----- Forwarded message from Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:36:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [classlib] where to put mods that make classlib more portable To: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] List-Id: <harmony-dev.incubator.apache.org> I detect a difference in approach between "doing things right" and "doing the least amount of work to get things running". I think both are good ways to make progress, and we should do both. On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:49:37AM +0800, Paulex Yang wrote: > There has been a VM/classlib interface definition named as VMI [1] , it > is concise and a *much* smaller interface than *all* native codes > classlib needs. If only the alternative VM implements the VMI and kernel > classes, the sample Java launcher current in SVN should can be used by > it to load classlib native libraries as well as VM libraries, so that > not only java codes but all the classlib specific native codes can be > used on alternate VM without modification, this make sense to me as > *portable*. Yeah it does! (to me) To make my comment above a little more concrete, From a very practical point of view, search-replacing all "native" keywords with '/* native */' is a much lazier/quicker way to get some stuff running (I mean, making JCHEVM implement this VMI sounds like lots of work, and it already implements another abstraction layer (the GNU classpath one), so the best way to do it is probably not so straight-forward), which is not without its merits either. Is there a good reason not to just go and try both ways? Man, who is this guy from the peanut gallery who keeps popping his head around the corner? O wait, its me. Carry on people, carry on... - LSD ----- End forwarded message -----
