Talk:Apache Harmony

Decision to rewrite from scratch

Why did they make such a decision? Sounds stupid from where I'm standing. This quote was originally embedded into the article as a  by Marudubshinki with regards to Apache Harmony's decision to wait for code donations instead of working out some kind of license agreement to use code from GNU Classpath. As it is a question/statement raised with regards to the content of the article, it has been moved to this talk page as comments are more for letting other editors know something specific about the way an article is organized and such instead of for relaying messages. -- Remy Suen 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Toward a free Java - the online article about the making that decission (several articles under same link, scroll downvard).

What is Apache Harmony?

In the article, it is stated that Apache Harmony is a proposed free implementation of the Java programming language. I don't feel that this is an accurate representation of what the project is. Isn't Harmony an implementation of the Java platform itself with the VM and class libraries included? I'm not sure off-hand as to whether Harmony includes a compiler, but if they did, I think they are just using ECJ, last I checked. Nonetheless, is it accurate to say that it is an implementation of a "programming language"? -- Remy Suen 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency

I think that saying that most of the developement process is not transparent is not completely true. It is true that this project received a lot of contributions from various companies, but it seems that all (or a lot of) the decisions are discussed on the mailing list. There are more that 1000 entries per month !! Hervegirod 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to say, the code writing is not transparent. The discussion part is.

Tone

This article (while I agree with the criticisms it makes of the Harmony project) does not have a sufficiently neutral tone, in my opinion. A section for discussing the rift between the Harmony and GNU Classpath groups is fine, but having the entire article be slanted against Harmony is inappropriate. Casey Marshall 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But also: I neglected to read previous changes, apparently contributed by Geir; I think we'd all appreciate it if GNU Classpath AND Harmony developers refrained from editing this article, as it looks like it is difficult for any of us to control our tempers here. Casey Marshall 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)