Re: Thoughts on 'reference classes'

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron M Renn <address@hidden> writes:

Aaron> o Solidify the JVM interface.  If we are going to fundamentally
Aaron> rethink it, the sooner the better.

I think this is important for a 1.0 release.  It seems like we're all
agreed on this.

Aaron> o Figure out the JNI/CNI situation and merge the native
Aaron> backends with gcj.

I don't think we should let this hold up Classpath 1.0.  libgcj will
probably continue to have some divergences with Classpath for quite
some time.  The CNI thing is just part of it.  In other places we have
divergences for performance reasons (see ResourceBundle) or due to how
our VM is implemented (see Reference).

Tom