Tamarin vs Java VM

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tamarin vs Java VM

jonsmirl@gmail.com
Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
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
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Marcello Bastéa-Forte
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).

Marcello

> Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

fchoong
I think it is an interesting concept. Is the byte code used by Tamarin
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

> 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).
>
> Marcello
>
>> Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
>> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Attila Szegedi-4
In reply to this post by Marcello Bastéa-Forte
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 03:40:55 +0100, Marcello Bastéa-Forte  
<[hidden email]> 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.

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Frank Hecker-2
In reply to this post by jonsmirl@gmail.com
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.

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
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

jonsmirl@gmail.com
On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>


--
Jon Smirl
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Georg Maaß
In reply to this post by Frank Hecker-2
Jon Smirl wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Frank Hecker-2
In reply to this post by Frank Hecker-2
Jon Smirl wrote:
> 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
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

jonsmirl@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Georg Maaß
On 11/21/06, Georg Maaß <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
> > 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.

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.


> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>


--
Jon Smirl
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

jonsmirl@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Frank Hecker-2
I've sent this off to a few people in Sun to see what their position is.
I asked them to respond here.

On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jon Smirl wrote:
> > 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
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>


--
Jon Smirl
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
In reply to this post by jonsmirl@gmail.com
Hi

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 » <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Now that Java is going GPL is it worth considering using a JVM instead
> 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.


_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

jonsmirl@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Frank Hecker-2
On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>


--
Jon Smirl
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Frank Hecker-2
In reply to this post by Frank Hecker-2
Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <[hidden email]> 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.

Frank

--
Frank Hecker
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

fchoong
In reply to this post by jonsmirl@gmail.com
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.

David Fu
--
firecat server-side javascript webserver
http://firecat.nihonsoft.org
http://blog.netbeans.jp/roller/page/fchoong

> On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>>
>
>
> --
> Jon Smirl
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Tamarin vs Java VM

Gregg Harrington
In reply to this post by jonsmirl@gmail.com
Looks like just GPL v2

http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g1

Cheers,

Gregg

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

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.

David Fu
--
firecat server-side javascript webserver
http://firecat.nihonsoft.org
http://blog.netbeans.jp/roller/page/fchoong

> On 11/21/06, Frank Hecker <[hidden email]> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>>
>
>
> --
> Jon Smirl
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
>

_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine


_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

jonsmirl@gmail.com
In reply to this post by fchoong
On 11/22/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tamarin vs Java VM

Georg Maaß
In reply to this post by Georg Maaß
Jon Smirl wrote:

> 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.
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine