3:47 a.m.
Hello All!
Currently we have 3 java implementations - GCJ, OpenJDK/IcedTea, ecj.
Even more, we got java-1.6.0-sun for EPEL.
Could someone summarize current status of these realizations
(fortunately, there is a dedicated wiki-page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java )? Capabilities, standards
compliance, other pros and cons.
I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ, and I'm
curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
Another question - what's the future of GCJ/ECJ in Fedora? Will they
be superseded by OpenJDK?
--
With best regards!
4:49 a.m.
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Currently we have 3 java implementations - GCJ, OpenJDK/IcedTea,
ecj.
Even more, we got java-1.6.0-sun for EPEL.
Could someone summarize current status of these realizations
(fortunately, there is a dedicated wiki-page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java )? Capabilities, standards
compliance, other pros and cons.
I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ, and I'm
curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
Why not?
Another question - what's the future of GCJ/ECJ in Fedora? Will
they
be superseded by OpenJDK?
It's a big job to answer all that. Ultimately it will be limited
by the number of people available to do the work, and we're trying
to plan all that. Be aware that full OpenJDK support is only
available on a few platforms, so there are gaps to fill.
I'll try to get all the status updates done soon. We've only just
completed JCK certification for OpenJDK in Fedora, and that ought
to be plenty for a little while.
If I haven't updated the web page in two weeks please bug me about
it.
Andrew.
4:57 a.m.
Andrew Haley <aph <at> redhat.com> writes:
Be aware that full OpenJDK support is only
available on a few platforms, so there are gaps to fill.
Speaking on OpenJDK's platform support, are there any plans to do anything with
twisti's Cacao work or is Shark the way to go?
Kevin Kofler
8:01 a.m.
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Andrew Haley <aph <at> redhat.com> writes:
> Be aware that full OpenJDK support is only
> available on a few platforms, so there are gaps to fill.
Speaking on OpenJDK's platform support, are there any plans to do anything with
twisti's Cacao work or is Shark the way to go?
I have Cacao as a back-burner project and I'll be investigating
it through the summer. It looks very interesting, and it now
seems to be stabilizing enough to be more than just an
experimental curiosity. All help is welcome, of course: simply
building Cacao + OpenJDK on one of the secondary arches and
reporting back on how well it works would be massively useful.
Andrew.
5 a.m.
2008/7/4 Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com>:
[skipped]
> I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ,
and I'm
> curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
Why not?
Is it the only reason?
> Another question - what's the future of GCJ/ECJ in Fedora?
Will they
> be superseded by OpenJDK?
It's a big job to answer all that. Ultimately it will be
limited
by the number of people available to do the work, and we're trying
to plan all that. Be aware that full OpenJDK support is only
available on a few platforms, so there are gaps to fill.
What gaps?
I'll try to get all the status updates done soon. We've only
just
completed JCK certification for OpenJDK in Fedora, and that ought
to be plenty for a little while.
If I haven't updated the web page in two weeks please bug me about
it.
Thanks! Will wait for updates in our Wiki.
--
With best regards!
8:03 a.m.
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2008/7/4 Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com>:
[skipped]
>> I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ, and I'm
>> curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
> Why not?
Is it the only reason?
They already build perfectly well with gcj, so I can't see anything
to be gained by changing them.
>> Another question - what's the future of GCJ/ECJ in
Fedora? Will they
>> be superseded by OpenJDK?
> It's a big job to answer all that. Ultimately it will be limited
> by the number of people available to do the work, and we're trying
> to plan all that. Be aware that full OpenJDK support is only
> available on a few platforms, so there are gaps to fill.
What gaps?
Most non-x86 platforms. We have an interpreter-only port of OpenJDK for
other platforms, which works well but is rather slow.
Andrew.
9:47 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2008/7/4 Andrew Haley :
>
> [skipped]
>
>>> I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ, and I'm
>>> curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
>
>> Why not?
>
> Is it the only reason?
They already build perfectly well with gcj, so I can't see anything
to be gained by changing them.
I should think they will continue to be built with GCJ until OpenJDK
supports ahead-of-time compiling.
- --
Mat Booth
www.matbooth.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkhuN/IACgkQKfdzh3zDrvALfwCffcHT8pQgDxCbxKu0/CXDnJyP
NmMAn3V2Cz7OQ4HvPKCzua4b8e/OA/VH
=vJUQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:49 p.m.
* Mat Booth <fedora(a)matbooth.co.uk> [2008-07-04 10:48]:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> 2008/7/4 Andrew Haley :
>>
>> [skipped]
>>
>>>> I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ, and
I'm
>>>> curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
>
> [...]
>
> They already build perfectly well with gcj, so I can't see anything
> to be gained by changing them.
I should think they will continue to be built with GCJ until OpenJDK
supports ahead-of-time compiling.
No, the AOT compilation was a GCJ-specific thing. In the JIT (HotSpot
in the OpenJDK case) world, the need for AOT compilation goes away.
Andrew
1:07 p.m.
Andrew Overholt wrote:
* Mat Booth <fedora(a)matbooth.co.uk> [2008-07-04 10:48]:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>>> 2008/7/4 Andrew Haley :
>>>
>>> [skipped]
>>>
>>>>> I'm interested because some packages still built with GCJ, and
I'm
>>>>> curious why they still not rebuild with (for example) OpenJDK?
>> [...]
>>
>> They already build perfectly well with gcj, so I can't see anything
>> to be gained by changing them.
> I should think they will continue to be built with GCJ until OpenJDK
> supports ahead-of-time compiling.
No, the AOT compilation was a GCJ-specific thing. In the JIT (HotSpot
in the OpenJDK case) world, the need for AOT compilation goes away.
Well, kinda-sorta. Modern JITs undoubtedly do a terrific job, but
there are some environments for which they are a little too
heavyweight. I still think there's some benefit to be had from
gcj, but probably not on high-powered desktop boxes.
Andrew.
5783
days inactive
5783
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrew Haley -
Andrew Overholt -
Kevin Kofler -
Mat Booth -
Peter Lemenkov