Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:31 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 16:28 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> >> 2009/5/7 Chris Gray <[email protected]>:
> >>> Quoth Andrew John Hughes:
> >>>>> Huh?  I was assuming Java compatibility was the goal.
> >>> Compatibility with the non-existent specification for Java 7, or with the
> >>> equally non-existent JCK for Java 7 (for which there is no JSR)? <G, D & R>
> >>>
> >> Neither; the JCK for OpenJDK6 which the builds of IcedTea in Fedora have passed:
> >> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/
> > 
> > I don't think that is a serious option, that is only available under NDA
> > and only granted to people who sign an SCA with Sun and even then access
> > is only granted if Sun feels like it.
> 
> So why is it not a serious option?

Because it isn't a thing that a free software community can do
collaboratively in the open and involves requiring proprietary software.
Maybe a third party could do it for their own binary builds, but I don't
see how we as a community can recommend it, nor would I want to
recommend it myself.

> > That said, adopting something like jigsaw for the core class library and
> > then having the option to switch modules seems a fine idea.
> > Compatibility is much more about running actually code than some opaque
> > proprietary test suite.
> 
> It's about *both*.  All the JCK does is make sure you've implemented the
> APIs as specified.

:) Since the JCK is under NDA that claim is not verifiable. But you
could say that the JCK assumes one particular interpretation yeah.
Still, if a secret test suite would say things should work one way, but
actual programs expect things differently I would go with not breaking
existing stuff.

Cheers,

Mark