[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Jim Thompson <jim at netgate dot com>
 To:  Dinesh Nair <dinesh at alphaque dot com>
 Cc:  Kris Maglione <bsdaemon at comcast dot net>, Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>, m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] The future - summary
 Date:  Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:19:16 -1000
On Oct 13, 2005, at 10:08 PM, Dinesh Nair wrote:

> On 10/14/05 15:10 Jim Thompson said the following:
>> which doesn't explain why people are able to run JVMs in cell  
>> phones  with less memory
>> than the cache on your machine.
> very much reduced instruction set. to handle this, i doubt we have  
> the resources to maintain a reduced instruction set JVM for m0n0wall.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've said here.

If you mean that the JVM found in "handsets" (phones) has fewer JVM  
'instructions" (op codes), then I recommend that you go take a look,
as it isn't "Java" without all the standard opcodes.   That said,  
JVMs exist for 8051s (and all kinds of "bigger" CPUs.)

What *is* missing from the smaller JVMs is the plethora of libraries  
that you get with Java (and perl, php, python, ruby, etc...)

If you meant something else, please explain.

>> Also, no need to fork per-request or thread, we've known how to  
>> use  select() (and poll()) for a long time.
> which may make sense, since we wouldnt expect the daemon to handle  
> thousands of requests per second. 50 or so would suffice.

typical m0n0 h/w isn't MP, either.

Still, you don't need threads to go fast.  Check out thttpd (http:// 

and then note that its not threaded, and it doesn't fork().

and yes, the topic is starting to wander a long way from m0n0 futures.