On Tuesday 28 September 1999, at 22 h 5, the keyboard of Daniel Barclay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A full Java implementation implements not just the language specification
> but also the Java virtual machine specification and the supposed API
> specification.
Right. For instance, kaffe, which
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
..
> On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machi
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 02:48:24AM -0300, Julio wrote:
> I think it's better to see RMI as a library, not as part of the core VM.
Ninja-RMI
Provides: jvm-rmi
Depends: jvm-1.1 (aka, java with reflection)
Classpath-RMI
Provides: jvm-rmi
Depends: jvm-1.1
etc?
E
--
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 04:47:54PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> Kaffe essentially provides the 1.1 version of the Java "platform". It does,
> for instance, provide the reflection facilities but does not provide weak
> references (i think). It still does not provide RMI so you could even argue
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 09:35:57AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> And kaffe 1.0.b4? What version of the VM does it provide? And gcj compiles
> which version of the language? One of the problems with versioning is that
> compliance to a specific version of the VM spec (for the JVMs) or to a
> And kaffe 1.0.b4? What version of the VM does it provide? And gcj compiles
> which version of the language? One of the problems with versioning is that
> compliance to a specific version of the VM spec (for the JVMs) or to a
> specific version of the language (for compilers) is typically not d
On Thursday 16 September 1999, at 20 h 5, the keyboard of Julio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> matters here is the Java virtual machine specification. I agree that using jdk
> compliance is not a good thing, but it'd be better to provide a more complete
> list of what a jdk provides. For example,
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 04:38:53PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have jav
On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages
> to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:24:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> > > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:24:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages
> > to set thei
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that
> implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages
> to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) when installing (or
> being set b
12 matches
Mail list logo
