From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Mar  3 08:17:34 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA10278
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squirrel.tgsoft.com (squirrel.tgsoft.com [207.167.64.183])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA10260
          for <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from thompson@localhost) by squirrel.tgsoft.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) id IAA03678; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703031616.IAA03678@squirrel.tgsoft.com>
From: mark thompson <thompson@tgsoft.com>
To: mal@algonet.se
CC: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: message from Mats Lofkvist on Sun, 02 Mar 1997 14:15:34 +0100
Subject: Re: java support under FreeBSD.
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

   From: Mats Lofkvist <mal@algonet.se>
   Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 14:15:34 +0100

   A few more problems:

   I can't see any decent way to automagically execute <name>.class when
     a user types <name>. If typing <name>.class is considered ok, why
     is typing 'java <name>' not? If the solution is to add a soft link,
     why not write a two-line script at once and avoid the need for kernel
     support altogether?

   If the kernel only keeps track of a single CLASSPATH (via sysctl or
     whatever), the user is limited to the code locations supported by
     the sysadmin. Kind of not being able to set my own PATH, uck :-(
     Maybe the kernel CLASSPATH should be appended to the users??


   Seems like the shell script solution is the best one. Being able to
   set the CLASSPATH that make _this_ program work in the script is a
   additional benefit you can't get from kernel execution of the code.

	 _
   Mats Lofkvist
   mal@algonet.se

If this behaviour is all that important (and it might be) add it to the
shells, not ther kernel. Sure, it seems like a crock, but the shell is
the last individual to know everything that you need to know (the kernel
certainly doesn't). 

Back in the dark ages, the shell would spawn shell scripts manually when
exec failed because they weren't executeables.

-mark