Tamarin vs Java VM
Jon Smirl
of Tamarin? For example Mozilla could always ship with a Java ME VM
that is very small but has limited performance. If the user cares
about AJAX performance and is willing to spend the time/disk on a
download they could upgrade their VM to Hotspot.
Rhino and the Blackwood XPCOM to Java code already exist. The
standardized VM would also mean that bytecode could be directly
downloaded.
Maybe this has all been discussed before, but I haven't noticed any
messages/blogs on the subject.
--
Jon Smirl
jons...@gmail.com
Marcello Bastéa-Forte
vs Tamarin vs Rhino. I'm curious who would come out on top (presumably
Tamarin, but by how much would be the question).
Marcello
fch...@netbeans.jp
same/similar to the Java Byte Code?
David Fu
--
firecat server-side javascript webserver
http://firecat.nihonsoft.org
http://blog.netbeans.jp/roller/page/fchoong
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> dev-tech-...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>
Attila Szegedi
<marc...@cellosoft.com> wrote:
> Which also brings up the interesting point of benchmarking SpiderMonkey
> vs Tamarin vs Rhino. I'm curious who would come out on top (presumably
> Tamarin, but by how much would be the question).
Well, Norris Boyd wrote some quite clever optimizations in the Rhino's
bytecode generator, see <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/opt.html>. That is,
for a quite broad categories of code, the generated Java bytecode is
already optimized to a certain degree, and the JIT can even further
optimize it. So, the benchmark ranking might not be as trivial as it seems
at first :-)
Attila.
Frank Hecker
> Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
> of Tamarin?
Note that, apart from any technical considerations, licensing issues
would prevent including GPL-licensed Java code in Mozilla-based
products: The GPL is not compatible with the MPL (at least according to
the Free Software Foundation), so this would prevent GPL-licensed Java
code from being included in Mozilla-based products distributed under
licensing terms that depend on the MPL provisions. More specifically,
this would prevent GPL-licensed Java code from being distributed with
Firefox in particular.
Our criterion for including code in the Mozilla tree is that it be under
a license that is compatible both with the GPL and LGPL on the one hand,
and with the MPL on the other hand. The standard Mozilla MPL/GPL/LGPL
"tri-license" (used for the Tamarin code) meets this criterion, as would
licenses such as the MIT license or the modified BSD license. A
vanilla GPL license does not.
Frank
P.S. To clarify one point: Sun does offer Java code under non-GPL
license terms to companies that want to include it in proprietary
products; however such licenses are not open source licenses, so they
don't help as far as Firefox and other Mozilla-based products are concerned.
--
Frank Hecker
hec...@mozillafoundation.org
Jon Smirl
> Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
> > of Tamarin?
>
> Note that, apart from any technical considerations, licensing issues
> would prevent including GPL-licensed Java code in Mozilla-based
> products: The GPL is not compatible with the MPL (at least according to
> the Free Software Foundation), so this would prevent GPL-licensed Java
> code from being included in Mozilla-based products distributed under
> licensing terms that depend on the MPL provisions. More specifically,
> this would prevent GPL-licensed Java code from being distributed with
> Firefox in particular.
You already have libart in the Mozilla source tree in the other
licenses section.
Having Java byte code capability in Mozilla would be an extremely
valuable feature since it opens up all of the Java development tools
to being used on Mozilla web apps.
When we see some benchmark there should be some differences too.
> Our criterion for including code in the Mozilla tree is that it be under
> a license that is compatible both with the GPL and LGPL on the one hand,
> and with the MPL on the other hand. The standard Mozilla MPL/GPL/LGPL
> "tri-license" (used for the Tamarin code) meets this criterion, as would
> licenses such as the MIT license or the modified BSD license. A
> vanilla GPL license does not.
>
> Frank
>
> P.S. To clarify one point: Sun does offer Java code under non-GPL
> license terms to companies that want to include it in proprietary
> products; however such licenses are not open source licenses, so they
> don't help as far as Firefox and other Mozilla-based products are concerned.
I don't think anyone has asked them about Java and the MPL, but
suspect the answer is no. Sun is using the non-GPL licenses to get
royalties from the cell phone vendors.
If Mozilla went with the JVM for Javascript it would still have the
spidermonkey engine available for people that need the MPL.
Besides, are there still people that care about Mozilla being MPL?
It's been a long time since I've seen anyone trying to charge money
for Mozilla with proprietary extensions.
>
> --
> Frank Hecker
> hec...@mozillafoundation.org
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> dev-tech-...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>
--
Jon Smirl
jons...@gmail.com
Georg Maaß
> Besides, are there still people that care about Mozilla being MPL?
> It's been a long time since I've seen anyone trying to charge money
> for Mozilla with proprietary extensions.
Yes there are.
And there are also people, that defintivly don't want Java.
Frank Hecker
> You already have libart in the Mozilla source tree in the other
> licenses section.
The libart code in the Mozilla tree is distributed under the LGPL, not
the GPL; see
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/other-licenses/libart_lgpl/
(There are GPL-licensed components to libart, but they are not used in a
Mozilla context.)
> Having Java byte code capability in Mozilla would be an extremely
> valuable feature since it opens up all of the Java development tools
> to being used on Mozilla web apps.
>
> When we see some benchmark there should be some differences too.
As I said, I'm not addressing the technical case for or against
including a Java VM in Mozilla-based products; I'll let you and others
do that. For me it's a moot point for the foreseeable future given the
licensing issues.
> Besides, are there still people that care about Mozilla being MPL?
> It's been a long time since I've seen anyone trying to charge money
> for Mozilla with proprietary extensions.
The problem is not due solely to people wanting to charge for
Mozilla-based products. Distributing a GPL-only Mozilla code base would
potentially cause problems in the following cases:
* People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products bundled with
extensions that are open source but under a GPL-incompatible license
(where it might be difficult to impossible to get that license changed)
* People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products with "free"
(i.e., no-charge) proprietary extensions and plugins such as Flash
player, etc.
* People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products using trademarks,
where the trademark logo files are not under open source licenses (this
case includes Firefox and Thunderbird)
Moving to a GPL-only licensing scheme for Mozilla code would be an
extremely major change, and I can pretty confidently state that it will
not happen for the foreseeable future, if ever.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
hec...@mozillafoundation.org
Jon Smirl
I'm not proposing to add Java to Mozilla, the proposal is to use the
JVM to run the Rhino Javascript engine. The JVM has had a huge amount
of engineering effort put into it.
Jon Smirl
I asked them to respond here.
On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <hec...@mozillafoundation.org> wrote:
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
I don't think its the best way to create an universal bytecode, it's the
Best, because of the differenes between each language.
Even if Java and Javascript is not sa far.
But a good way is maybe to think about a "compiled" version of javascript
like do lua, but with a specific bytecode to optimise the run.
A problem can appear with the function eval, because eval allow to inject
some code in javascript dynamicly. Perl as the same with some part that was
compiled and other compiled during the running.
Le 20/11/06 23:25, « Jon Smirl » <jons...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
Jon Smirl
> Mozilla-based products. Distributing a GPL-only Mozilla code base would
> potentially cause problems in the following cases:
Some Sun people have pointed out that Java is dual licensed, CDDL and
GPL. They believe that their license combo should be flexible enough
to intermingle with the Mozila MPL/GPL/LGPL.
> * People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products bundled with
> extensions that are open source but under a GPL-incompatible license
> (where it might be difficult to impossible to get that license changed)
>
> * People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products with "free"
> (i.e., no-charge) proprietary extensions and plugins such as Flash
> player, etc.
>
> * People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products using trademarks,
> where the trademark logo files are not under open source licenses (this
> case includes Firefox and Thunderbird)
>
> Moving to a GPL-only licensing scheme for Mozilla code would be an
> extremely major change, and I can pretty confidently state that it will
> not happen for the foreseeable future, if ever.
>
> Frank
>
> --
> Frank Hecker
> hec...@mozillafoundation.org
Frank Hecker
> On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <hec...@mozillafoundation.org> wrote:
>> The problem is not due solely to people wanting to charge for
>> Mozilla-based products. Distributing a GPL-only Mozilla code base would
>> potentially cause problems in the following cases:
>
> Some Sun people have pointed out that Java is dual licensed, CDDL and
> GPL. They believe that their license combo should be flexible enough
> to intermingle with the Mozila MPL/GPL/LGPL.
I don't think we've ever had any CDDL-licensed code in the Mozilla code
base, but it may be the case that CDDL/GPL-licensed code could in fact
be distributed as part of the same software as the existing
MPL/GPL/LGPL-licensed Mozilla code. (The idea presumably would be to use
MPL/CDDL terms for products like Firefox or all-GPL terms for
GPL-licensed Mozilla derivatives.)
In that case the focus would go back on the original question of whether
it makes sense to bundle a Java VM with Firefox et.al. As I said, I'll
leave that question to others.
fch...@netbeans.jp
This is the first time I have heard that the OpenJDK is dual-licensed
under the GPL and CDDL. A check on the license with the source also does
not mention the CDDL. So a link which says Java is also licensed under
CDDL would be helpful.
David Fu
--
firecat server-side javascript webserver
http://firecat.nihonsoft.org
http://blog.netbeans.jp/roller/page/fchoong
> On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <hec...@mozillafoundation.org> wrote:
>> The problem is not due solely to people wanting to charge for
>> Mozilla-based products. Distributing a GPL-only Mozilla code base would
>> potentially cause problems in the following cases:
>
> Some Sun people have pointed out that Java is dual licensed, CDDL and
> GPL. They believe that their license combo should be flexible enough
> to intermingle with the Mozila MPL/GPL/LGPL.
>
>
>> * People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products bundled with
>> extensions that are open source but under a GPL-incompatible license
>> (where it might be difficult to impossible to get that license changed)
>>
>> * People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products with "free"
>> (i.e., no-charge) proprietary extensions and plugins such as Flash
>> player, etc.
>>
>> * People who want to distribute Mozilla-based products using trademarks,
>> where the trademark logo files are not under open source licenses (this
>> case includes Firefox and Thunderbird)
>>
>> Moving to a GPL-only licensing scheme for Mozilla code would be an
>> extremely major change, and I can pretty confidently state that it will
>> not happen for the foreseeable future, if ever.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> --
>> Frank Hecker
>> hec...@mozillafoundation.org
Gregg Harrington
Jon Smirl
> Hi Jon,
> This is the first time I have heard that the OpenJDK is dual-licensed
> under the GPL and CDDL. A check on the license with the source also does
> not mention the CDDL. So a link which says Java is also licensed under
> CDDL would be helpful.
I have asked them to provide a link but it is a major holiday here in
the US and many people are on vacation. The download would be
somewhere besides OpenJDK, everything there is GPL. I know for sure
Java source is available under SCSL and JRL, OpenJDK doesn't mention
those either.
Hopefully they will find someone who can make an official statement on
this next week, I'm just emailing the developers and they can't make
official statements.
--
Jon Smirl
jons...@gmail.com
Georg Maaß
> I'm not proposing to add Java to Mozilla, the proposal is to use the
> JVM to run the Rhino Javascript engine. The JVM has had a huge amount
> of engineering effort put into it.
Doing this results in Java thinking causing the self modifying
environment going lost. I do not like this inflexible Java thinking.