[Soot-list] Extending Soot

[Richard L. Halpert]

Attila,
I believe that's a porting *service*, not a compiler/converter.  From their
website:

Using Mainsoft's Enterprise Edition eases these cross-platform challenges by
enabling you to rapidly port Microsoft .NET Web and server applications to
the Java EE platform, without having to hire more engineers or rewrite your
entire code. Whereas a Java or Linux rewrite takes eighteen to twenty-four
months on average, Mainsoft will port enterprise applications on a
fixed-time, fixed-cost basis to WebSphere®, Tomcat or any Java EE server
such as Weblogic or JBoss, typically *in 3 to 6 months*.
(emphasis mine)

I was thinking of IKVM, which actually a JVM implemented in .NET, with a
classpath implemented in .NET too.  (http://www.ikvm.net/index.html)

FYI, a quick Google search turned up this for .NET->Java:
https://net2java.dev.java.net/DNJGuide.html.

-Richard


On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Attila Bartha <at.bartha at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Richard, which tools did you think about specifically?
>
>
>
> In the meantime, I found a vendor of a cross compiler for Microsoft
> Intermediate Language (MSIL) to Java bytecode. Here is the link:
> http://www.mainsoft.com
>
> The product description sounds pretty solid. You can write C# or VB code,
> convert it, and run the bytecode on a tomcat application server.
>
> Well, they forgot to mention that you can eventually analyze the bytecode
> with soot…
>
>
>
> Attila
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* richardlhalpert at gmail.com [mailto:richardlhalpert at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Richard L. Halpert
> *Sent:* Montag, 7. Dezember 2009 19:39
> *To:* Eric Bodden
> *Cc:* Attila Bartha; soot-list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Soot-list] Extending Soot
>
>
>
> I think .NET has some primitive types that would be difficult to represent
> in java bytecode.  That's probably one of the primary reasons why there
> don't seem to be any .NET->java tools out there.  There are some tools that
> convert in the opposite direction, though.
>
> -Richard
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Eric Bodden <
> bodden at st.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Attila.
>
>
> > One big difference is that in VB (at least in the version I use), you can
> > define arguments as In, Out, or InOut. This means, that the current
> ValueBox
> > concept (useBox vs defBox) is not sufficient. How would you map InOut
> > arguments to Jimple?
>
> That is an interesting question. The only "solution" I could come up
> with is to introduce some "box" or "wrapper" type, which is passed as
> parameter by value in such cases so that then you can assign to this
> box in an out parameter.
>
>
> > Are there already any tools to compile VB to Jimple, VB to bytecode or
> > similar?
>
> None that I am aware of. But such a tool would certainly be very nice
> to have - and even better if it did support the whole .NET
> intermediate language.
>
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> Soot-list mailing list
> Soot-list at sable.mcgill.ca
> http://mailman.cs.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/soot-list
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.cs.mcgill.ca/pipermail/soot-list/attachments/20091207/e5dba7ec/attachment-0001.html