1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Uyl16-0003QQ-HF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:48:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Uyl14-0004jk-OR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:48:48 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n9so15758103oag.36
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.41.37 with SMTP id c5mr43552352oel.43.1373903321312; Mon,
15 Jul 2013 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C1727B41-AF61-44FA-BE17-5FE4425FDEA8@grabhive.com>
References: <B87F1213-5BD8-43F5-9744-F69947561ED5@grabhive.com>
<CANEZrP2xh=m8yWLt-o2UrrUVfU+cUYBuMVxkVFF5mVMtWdRwOQ@mail.gmail.com>
<C1727B41-AF61-44FA-BE17-5FE4425FDEA8@grabhive.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:48:41 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FS2iKXXn7zmRA_Xpk90SH_55mnk
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0_H9+prDSF92q8a4QzP=fzDM6cTDv0+KcfV9NF9thkmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Wendell <w@grabhive.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a09646c362d04e18ecb94
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Uyl14-0004jk-OR
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Introducing BitcoinKit.framework
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:48:48 -0000
--089e013a09646c362d04e18ecb94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Oracle provide an OSX JVM and will do so for the forseeable future, it's
also open source, so the community could carry on if they stopped. The
primary problem with the Oracle JVM is lack of retina support for Swing,
but if you'd write a Cocoa UI yourself then it doesn't matter of course as
Java won't handle any GUI stuff. Retina support for JavaFX2 (the
current-gen gui toolkit) is available in Java 8 so it's definitely being
actively developed, it's not abandoned or anything.
So the question then becomes, which is better:
a) Take bitcoinj completely out of the Java world via native compilation or
transpilation to C++
b) Embed the JVM and link the two worlds together?
(b) is much less ambitious, especially if you're OK with writing a bit of
Java code to keep the interface thin. Basically the Java side calls into
your app when interesting user-visible things happen, like new transactions
appearing, then your GUI can call into the java side to send money. There
are auto-translators that make the glue work easy, like
https://code.google.com/p/javacpp/. You probably wouldn't want to expose
the entire bitcoinj API that way because it's very large, but the code
needed to bring up a wallet app is very small. I knocked one up this
weekend in about one evenings worth of coding, completed with nice
animations. The interfaces you'd need are basically some Objective-C++
methods that receive information from the Bitcoin side, like the balance
having changed, a list of transactions, etc, and then a callback into the
Java side to send money. If you look at the javacpp site you can see
example code for making calls both ways.
If I were in your shoes, I'd go for (b) because it is the most well trodden
path and will let you achieve the best user visible results quickly. The
JVM can be bundled with your app and stripped down if you're worried about
download size.
If it's unclear how the code would look, let me know and I'll try and knock
up a really simple prototype.
There's also (a). I'm investigating transpilation for a few reasons, one of
which is to do with a private project. I'm working with the author of j2c:
https://code.google.com/a/eclipselabs.org/p/j2c/. It's a rather
sophisticated transpiler that converts Java to clean, readable C++11 that
looks much like code a human would write. It's complete enough to transpile
the entire standard Java class library, including all the GUI toolkits and
other things - so, pretty amazing piece of code. However it's incomplete
because where the Java code calls native methods (that would be provided by
the JVM) it just spits out stubs you're expected to fill out yourself, for
starting threads and so on. As there's no JVM it's just like using a C++
library that is missing a "portability layer".
I'm working on this myself and don't really need much help at the moment,
I'm just making steady progress towards getting something up and running. I
can let you know once I reach some interesting milestones. The point of
this is that whilst you don't need access to most of the API to write a
wallet app, I'd like to make every kind of app easy from C++, not just GUI
wallets. Then the compile-to-C++ approach is much more appealing, even
though it's also more work.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Wendell <w@grabhive.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> You are absolutely right about the synchronize time, it's one of our main
> frustration points right now and we clearly won't deliver the kind of user
> experience we want, without fixing this. Actually we were thinking of
> extending Jeff Garzik's picocoin as time permits, but the plan is far from
> concrete at the moment.
>
> What you say about trans-piling bitcoinj is _really_ appealing. We
> discounted Java simply because an OS X JVM is no longer guaranteed, but
> otherwise bitcoinj is ideal for our purposes. How can we assist or
> otherwise accelerate such an effort?
>
> -w
>
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> > That's great! I'm all for more wallets, especially user friendly UIs.
> >
> > However being based on bitcoind means it will take a very long time to
> synchronize for new users. We know a lot of users drop out. The best fix
> for this is SPV mode. Do you have any plans in this direction?
> >
> > So far, the only SPV mode implementation I know about is bitcoinj. I am
> experimenting with trans-piling bitcoinj to C++ to make it usable from
> Objective-C++ exactly with your use case in mind.
>
>
--089e013a09646c362d04e18ecb94
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Oracle provide an OSX JVM and will do so for the forseeabl=
e future, it's also open source, so the community could carry on if the=
y stopped. The primary problem with the Oracle JVM is lack of retina suppor=
t for Swing, but if you'd write a Cocoa UI yourself then it doesn't=
matter of course as Java won't handle any GUI stuff. Retina support fo=
r JavaFX2 (the current-gen gui toolkit) is available in Java 8 so it's =
definitely being actively developed, it's not abandoned or anything.<di=
v>
<br></div><div>So the question then becomes, which is better:</div><div><br=
></div><div>a) Take bitcoinj completely out of the Java world via native co=
mpilation or transpilation to C++</div><div>b) Embed the JVM and link the t=
wo worlds together?</div>
<div><br></div><div>(b) is much less ambitious, especially if you're OK=
with writing a bit of Java code to keep the interface thin. Basically the =
Java side calls into your app when interesting user-visible things happen, =
like new transactions appearing, then your GUI can call into the java side =
to send money. There are auto-translators that make the glue work easy, lik=
e=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://code.google.com/p/javacpp/">https://code.google.c=
om/p/javacpp/</a>. You probably wouldn't want to expose the entire bitc=
oinj API that way because it's very large, but the code needed to bring=
up a wallet app is very small. I knocked one up this weekend in about one =
evenings worth of coding, completed with nice animations. The interfaces yo=
u'd need are basically some Objective-C++ methods that receive informat=
ion from the Bitcoin side, like the balance having changed, a list of trans=
actions, etc, and then a callback into the Java side to send money. If you =
look at the javacpp site you can see example code for making calls both way=
s.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If I were in your shoes, I'd go for (b) because it =
is the most well trodden path and will let you achieve the best user visibl=
e results quickly. The JVM can be bundled with your app and stripped down i=
f you're worried about download size.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>If it's unclear how the code would look, let me kno=
w and I'll try and knock up a really simple prototype.</div><div><br></=
div><div>There's also (a). I'm investigating transpilation for a fe=
w reasons, one of which is to do with a private project. I'm working wi=
th the author of j2c:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://code.google.com/a/eclipselabs=
.org/p/j2c/">https://code.google.com/a/eclipselabs.org/p/j2c/</a>. It's=
a rather sophisticated transpiler that converts Java to clean, readable C+=
+11 that looks much like code a human would write. It's complete enough=
to transpile the entire standard Java class library, including all the GUI=
toolkits and other things - so, pretty amazing piece of code. However it&#=
39;s incomplete because where the Java code calls native methods (that woul=
d be provided by the JVM) it just spits out stubs you're expected to fi=
ll out yourself, for starting threads and so on. As there's no JVM it&#=
39;s just like using a C++ library that is missing a "portability laye=
r".</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm working on this myself and don't really nee=
d much help at the moment, I'm just making steady progress towards gett=
ing something up and running. I can let you know once I reach some interest=
ing milestones. The point of this is that whilst you don't need access =
to most of the API to write a wallet app, I'd like to make every kind o=
f app easy from C++, not just GUI wallets. Then the compile-to-C++ approach=
is much more appealing, even though it's also more work.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Wend=
ell <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:w@grabhive.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">w@grabhive.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
You are absolutely right about the synchronize time, it's one of our ma=
in frustration points right now and we clearly won't deliver the kind o=
f user experience we want, without fixing this. Actually we were thinking o=
f extending Jeff Garzik's picocoin as time permits, but the plan is far=
from concrete at the moment.<br>
<br>
What you say about trans-piling bitcoinj is _really_ appealing. We discount=
ed Java simply because an OS X JVM is no longer guaranteed, but otherwise b=
itcoinj is ideal for our purposes. How can we assist or otherwise accelerat=
e such an effort?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
-w<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On Jul 15, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
<br>
> That's great! I'm all for more wallets, especially user friend=
ly UIs.<br>
><br>
> However being based on bitcoind means it will take a very long time to=
synchronize for new users. We know a lot of users drop out. The best fix f=
or this is SPV mode. Do you have any plans in this direction?<br>
><br>
> So far, the only SPV mode implementation I know about is bitcoinj. I a=
m experimenting with trans-piling bitcoinj to C++ to make it usable from Ob=
jective-C++ exactly with your use case in mind.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--089e013a09646c362d04e18ecb94--
|
