Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 06:24:21 -0500
Posted-Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:11:00 GMT
Message-Id: <199512091111.LAA01760@dialup-pkr-1-4.network.umr.edu>
Subject: Re: Sound in pre2 works (and other status) (fwd)
To: dittrich@cac.washington.edu (Dave Dittrich)
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:10:56 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: dunham@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu, java-linux@java.blackdown.org
In-Reply-To: <9512062242.AA01340@red3.cac.washington.edu> from "Dave Dittrich" at Dec 6, 95 02:42:02 pm
From: tfries@umr.edu (Todd Fries)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       2719
Resent-Message-Id: <"6-Zyb1.0.wY1.H7Nom"@liquor>
Resent-From: java-linux@java.blackdown.org
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: java-linux-request@java.blackdown.org

> >   You should `Do the right thing'(TM) - I don't have in depth knowledge of
> >   the problems involved here, but it seems that kernel threads are `The
> >   Right Thing'(TM).
> 
> Thread support is desireable, but not critical at this point in time
> (my opinion).
> 
> I'd personally rather minimize the variables that Randy has
> to deal with so that he can concentrate on debugging a working (get it
> working first; optimize later) Java development environment.  In my
> experience, if you use too many development (read "variable")
> components to solve a problem, you spend far more overhead time
> debugging and fixing the variables than you do on the end result
> (learning/developing Java applications).

I guess it all depends on whether or not kernel threads are a vital
part of the creation if included from the beginning, or an 'optimization'
later on.  I have no idea how hard it would be to move java from
greenthreads to kernel threads.  Personally I would think if one is
planning on using kernel threads, it would save a lot of headache
later if one used them now rather than later.

> My vote is that Randy stick with the most common 1.2.x ELF kernel that
> is used (seems to me to be something akin to RedHat 2.0) to minimize
> the impact of kernel and development tool (e.g., compiler, linker,
> etc.)  instability and get the JDK itself running and stable (and,
> perhaps, integrated into the Sun source base so that Linux is more
> respected as a development platform by Sun et al).  Then worry about
> getting it going with the newer 1.3.x kernels next year some time.
>
> I'll just end by saying that (in my opinion) the only way Java is
> going to get the competitive lead on Microsoft that it needs is for
> the development tools to be working ASAP and for LOTS OF PEOPLE to
> start using it. Let's look at this with a professional software
> development slant for a minute.  It seems extremely unwise to waste
> time trying to use the latest, "greatest" (where "greatest" means
> hacker's wet dream, rather than business man's trusted tool)
> development kernel to do further development/debugging on an extremely
> high demand development tool.  You're not going to see Bill Gates
> announcing his intention to use Windows97 or NT 5.0 for Blackbird in
> his press conference tomorrow; he'll use "stable" NT 3.5 and the rest
> of last decade's operating system technology to build tomorrow's Web
> foundation.

Again, it all depends on whether or not 'latest kernel threads' is more
or less useful than greenthraads.  I suggest it is.  But I'm not Randy.
Randy?

> My words, my opnions, blah, blah, blah...
:-)  same hear..

-- 
Todd Fries...tfries@umr.edu
http://www.cs.umr.edu/~tfries