Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:08:22 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TowerJ for FreeBSD Message-ID: <199901272308.QAA24350@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199901272250.PAA28087@usr05.primenet.com> References: <199901271953.MAA22848@mt.sri.com> <199901272250.PAA28087@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > And I think this "shim" is already well documented in the KLD for > > > the Solaris ABI module. Yes, I don't know for sure if the Solaris > > > JDK code will run under the ABI, but Oracle does, and so, apparently, > > > does Lotus Notes. > > > > We're talking two different problems here. One is a 'completely' > > separate SVR4 emulation model, and the other is hybrid of FreeBSD > > binaries and SVR4 (or other) shared libraries. > > If Sun can do it in user space for SunOS 4.1.3 binaries, then Nate can > do it in user space for Solaris x86 binaries on FreeBSD. Actually, any 'significant' SunOS binary does *NOT* work on Solaris. (And I'm speaking from experience.) > The Motif code does not have a large investment in the architecture > of the OS on which it is run -- it is portable code. Actually no. Many of my X programs would not run when I switched to Solaris, and few of them had 'OS' dependant portions of code. fvwm is one that comes to mind. > > > I know we all have a bias that the stuff we are doing is harder than > > > the stuff anyone else is doing, but frankly I can't see that the JDK > > > would be any more dependent than the other foreign binaries. > > > > Never said it was hard, but that it's alot of stuff to deal with since > > it requires alot of OS hooks, unlike most 'foreign binaries'. (Although > > I would guess that Oracle would be in the same class because it tries to > > do lots of 'performance' gaining calls. > > Precisely why I cited the Oracle success, which you can independently > verify without having to "stoop" to granting me any credibility > whatsoever, since you are loathe to do so. No, I'm not willing to let you change the definition of success. Being able to run a completely native Oracle application in SVR4 emulation is *NOT* the same problem as running a FreeBSD binary that links agains the Oracle libraries. They are entirely different problems, with some slight overlap. Stick to the issue you raised. > The part that's linked with the Solaris SHIM library. E.g.: What SHIM library? You're changing the the topic again. > > Basically, what you're trying to do is put a small-block Chevy engine in > > a BMW. Yes, it can be done, but it's not easy and the resulting car is > > probably worse than the original Chevy and the BMW in terms of > > performance and reliability. > > No, that's not what I'm trying to do. Sure you are. Motif/Solaris library == small-block Chevy. FreeBSD == BMW. They weren't designed to go together. Nate > > Terry, you have *yet* to complete a project in FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc.. , > > Actually, I have a number of projects that have been completed and > integrated into both systems. > > LKM's were mine. And they weren't finished. And, I've got your email to prove it. > The FreeBSD kern/init_main.c and linker set based SYSINIT code is > mine. Booted your FreeBSD box lately? And they weren't finished. I've got email from you to prove it. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901272308.QAA24350>