From owner-freebsd-java Sun Dec 31 12: 1:16 2000 From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 31 12:01:13 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from crewsoft.com (ns.aenet.net [157.22.214.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E04D37B400 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [63.206.193.161] (HELO wireless-networks.com) by crewsoft.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3b5) with ESMTP id 394114; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:03:40 -0800 Message-ID: <3A4F9098.E23D6E72@wireless-networks.com> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:01:28 -0800 From: Cedric Berger X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" Cc: Sean Kelly , Ernst de Haan , "Koster, K.J." , FreeBSD Java mailing list Subject: Re: Port for the Orion Server (J2EE Application Server) References: <296590000.978193425@grolsch.ai> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Let me add another reason not to recompile jar files: Sometimes, you need do distribute a *signed* jar file. You certainly don't want to distribute your private keys, and requiring everybody to have a certificate will probably make Verisign happy, but probably not the users. Cedric > >> Well, but -in the FreeBSD spirit- we will download the source > >> files, which need to be compiled before we get a JAR. > > > > Should that really be the approach (or "spirit," if you prefer) > > when it comes to Java programs? Most third-party APIs and > > applications in Java usually come in precompiled .jar files > > ready to use (since most of them are hand-built or are the > > product of some awful Windows-based IDE), and I've really > > gotten used to just tossing those .jar files in my > > $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/ext directory and going (possibly throwing > > all caution to the wind, at least until signed jars are more > > prevalent) with no time wasted. (Yes, just the problem ant > > solves ... say ... what about bsd.ant.mk? :-) > > > > Moreover, when I'm installing a port, I'll often just use the > > package form of it instead of building the port, since it's > > much faster (for me, at least) to download a precompiled beast > > than to wait for something to build. > > > > What are other's thoughts? > > Being responsible for a number of open source Java libraries I strongly > prefer that a port does a binary install. I have a couple of reasons for > this: > > 1. The user may not have a Java compiler installed. Unlike C/C++ > this is a workable situation because Java program should never > require a recompile for configuration purposes. > > 2a. Compiling of a package may be very tricky. Some of my 100% > pure Java projects will not compile with a Sun javac because > the Sun javac compiler is buggy. > > 2b. Compiling the Cryptix JCE project requires the triple of Sun > JDK 1.1.8, Sun JDK 1.2.x and Jikes to be installed. > > 2c. Bottom line is that you can't write-once, compile-anywhere > for some projects. > > 3. I am unable to give support for packages that I did not compile > myself. I just don't have enough time to waste. The source (BSD > license in general) is available for trouble-shooting and for > those who want to contribute. > > The bottom line is that Java != C/C++ and the rules that apply to > C/C++ do not carry over when it comes to binary vs. source. > > Of course, the source -if available- ought to be installed alongside > the binary bits. > > My EC$ 0.02 + HTH + Cheers, > Jeroen > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message