Re: [Sablevm-developer] One more important reference

[Etienne M. G. <eg...@j-...>]

Hi Brent.

Brent Fulgham wrote:
> The first (i.e., most recent) paper discusses several flaws
> with existing JVM's.  

I probably won't have time to go through all these papers.  But, I will
certainly be available to answer any question you have about SableVM's
internal representation, and how you can make use of it.

> I think it would be great if we could
> provide a work-around on top of SableVM.  

I am open to extentions, as long as they can be truned off/on easily
(compile and/or run time, if there's no efficiency penalty). 
Preferably, extentions should be off by default, so that users using
SableVM as a normal Java interpreter get what they expect.

Note: You might also want to start thinking about the implications of
adding closures on the verifier...  I know that many functional
languages provide static safety, but the Java interpreter also  provides
compiler independent link time safety through the verifier, a protection
against devious compilers.

> It might not be
> standard, but perhaps (if it is successful) it could be added
> to the JVM specification?

This is not under my control (it is under Sun's), but I can certainly
allow you to test your ideas with SableVM:-)

Etienne
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Etienne M. Gagnon, M.Sc.                     e-mail: eg...@j-...
Author of SableVM:                             http://www.sablevm.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------