TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
W. Wesley Groleau x4923
Date:
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:03:29 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
> >1. Not break any security features in validated JVMs
>
> Understood.  Not at all clear.  That's why "eventually" it would need to
> all be written in Ada.

I'm not talking about the security features designed into Ada such as type
safety, modularity, and readability.  I'm talking about the security
features the Java guys thought of ahead of time (or discovered the hard
way and fixed) such as no access to local files, no tricking the JVM into
replacing any of its own classes--oops, I forgot that one's not fixed
yet.  :-)

> >2. Not lose the ability to have it validated as a "compliant" JVM.
>
> Can't answer this one.  My suspicion is "politics" will be the biggest
> obstacle here.

Probably.  But does the spec say, "here is the list of features and any
so-called JVM capable of doing more is non-compliant" ?

I remember hearing that HP was producing a JVM but not calling it a JVM
because allegedly certification would prevent certain features they
thought were necessary for their target customers.

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2