Java status?
 

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 be superseded by OpenJDK?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.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

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

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

2008/7/4 Andrew Haley <aph@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 be superseded by OpenJDK?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!

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

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.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2008/7/4 Andrew Haley <aph@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.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

-----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-----

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

* Mat Booth <fedora@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

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Java status?
 

Andrew Overholt wrote:
> * Mat Booth <fedora@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.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list