[rc5] Security, Java, and Source

Roland Nilsson rynilss at ibm.net
Fri Oct 10 20:39:32 EDT 1997

Addressed to: rc5 at llamas.net
              "David M. Putzolu" <dputzolu at teleport.com>

David, I think I understood the first 14 times.
But then, I'm not a programmer ;-) 

Java is portable, by definition.
It can use platform-specific routines for optimum speed.
It is also safe.
All of the above brings more clients into the effort 
and helps contribute to the effort.

BUT, I confess I get confused when you start shouting in short sentences.
Without the verbs, one tends to get rather LESS verbal.

Still, Mishari has a point too, doesn't he? Show what you can do.
Let's calm down a bit and save bandwidth for us dial-ups.

(Hope MY mailer doesn't add a lot of extra garbage!!!)

> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT) 
> From: "David M. Putzolu" <dputzolu at teleport.com> 
> Subject: Re: [rc5] Security, Java, and Source 
> Mishari Muqbil (mishari at thepentagon.com) wrote: 
> >Look, i have absolutely no idea what you guys are all Bitching on about: 
> Try paying attention then. 
> >JAVA? Java is 50-60 times slower than the average v1 client. 
> Pay attention Mishari:  Java has within it the concept of 
> NATIVE METHODS.  This concept allows a Java program to 
> OF THE PLATFORM IT IS RUNNING ON.  Sorry about the shouting, 
> but some people seem to not be reading things closely. 
> So: Write the GUI and networking code in Java.  Write a 
> very small NATIVE METHOD in the assembly language for 
> your particular machine of choice.  So, you get all 
> the wonderful hand-tuned performance that people are so 
> orgasmic about, yet you significantly increase the overall 
> portability of your client.  You also greatly improve the 
> safety of the client, in that it is easy to verify the 
> safety of a small native method, but quite difficult to 
> verify it for an entire client, and the Java code is 
> safe by definition. 
> Do you have an idea (clue) what we are bitching about now Mishari? 
> Ivo Janssen (ivo at ricardis.tudelft.nl) wrote: 
> > David Putzolu wrote: 
> > > * By using Java's native methods capability, it would be possible 
> > >   to get ALL the performance benefits of "native, targeted, 
> > >   hand-tuned assembly code." Furthermore, it would NOT be necessary 
> > >   to re-write all the supporting infrastructure code (network, 
> > >   GUI, etc.) for every platform. 
> >  
> > So you're saying: core in assembler, networking in java. 
> > But: the networking part is already here in C. 
> > And this _should_ compile on almost every platform. Every platform 
> > has it's C-compiler, including sockets, select, accept, etc. 
> > (even dos has DJGPP/libsocket) 
> Are you being disingenous?  Did you miss the word "GUI" in 
> my point above?  I'll reiterate using short sentences to 
> ensure comprehension: 
> Core in assembler. Use native methods to do this. Good performance. 
> Networking in Java. GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI) in Java. 
> GUI code in C not portable. GUI code in Java portable. 
> Repeat: GUI C code not portable. GUI Java code portable. 
> Portable good! Not portable bad!  C GUI bad! Java GUI good! 
> Also: 
> C not safe. Java safe. Easy to verify security of 
> small core module. Hard to verify security of large 
> C networking/GUI module.  So do Java GUI/networking. 
> Java safe. Make very small core key test module. Small core 
> module easy to verify for security.  I can verify core 
> module and sign with PGP.  So can lots of people. Don't 
> have time to verify entire C source. Can't anyway, Bovine 
> team knows best and won't release. 
> Is this clear enough?  

---<snip>  --------------

> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 10:04:12 -0600 
> From: "Eric Gindrup"<gindrup at okway.okstate.edu> 
> Subject: Re[2]: [rc5] Security, Java, and Source  
---<snip>  --------------
>      The comment isn't that it hasn't been done, it's that porting that  
>      stuff to each new platform is time-intensive.  This time would be  
>      better spent addressing the requested client improvements, not on  
>      fixing another micro-difference between this and that thread library. 
>             -- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at okway.okstate.edu

Roland Y Nilsson                WARPING on
JARFALLA            ... with PostRoad Mailer 2.6!
SWEDEN                         from InnoVal
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list