Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:27:44 -0500 (EST) From: Chris BeHanna <behanna@zbzoom.net> To: FreeBSD-Java <java@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Port for the Orion Server (J2EE Application Server) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012311822170.45453-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <818090000.978283636@grolsch.ai>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> --On Sunday, December 31, 2000 11:25:34 -0500 Chris BeHanna
> <behanna@zbzoom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> >
> >> --On Saturday, December 30, 2000 19:50:07 -0500 Chris BeHanna
> >> <behanna@zbzoom.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Being responsible for a number of open source Java libraries I
> >> >> strongly prefer that a port does a binary install.
> >> >
> >> > With (almost?) all ports, you have always had the option of
> >> > grabbing the precompiled package and doing
> >> >
> >> > pkg_add <pkgtarball>
> >> >
> >> > instead of cd'ing to the ports area and doing
> >> >
> >> > make install
> >> >
> >> > I strongly believe that this model should be followed for Java as well
> >> > as for C/C++.
> >>
> >> Uhm. You have not addressed any of the concerns expressed in the mail
> >> you are responding to. Nor do you provide any arguments in favor of
> >> your strong belief.
> >
> > The argument is simple: those who want jars can grab them via the
> > pkg_add method. Those who want source can use the make install
> > method. This is completely consistent with the existing ports model
> > and requires no change in practice.
>
> As outlined in my mail: what you propose may be difficult (point 2b), not
> possible (point 1), inappropriate (point 3) or inconvenient (point 2abc).
These points can be addressed by:
1) Crafting a port that builds without handholding; and
2) Setting port dependencies appropriately.
> Keep in mind that Java and C/C++ are fundamentally different. Most C
> programs are shipped in source form and the user is expected to
> ./configure, make, make install. The ports system naturally matches and
> automates this process.
>
> Java programs on the other hand are mostly shipped as precompiled jars
> (i.e. binary) and the end-user is not expected to use the source except for
> reference purposes and/or for contributing.
Nothing prevents you or anyone from shipping jars in a tarball
that is installed via pkg_add.
> The Jakarta webpage says:
>
> "We make the actual source code available for anyone to use. In general,
> the source code is meant for developers who want to "hack" in order to
> integrate Servlets and JSP into other products."
>
> and
>
> "In general, binaries are meant for developers who want to use the Servlet
> and JavaServer Pages technologies (versus those who want to "hack" the
> technologies in order to integrate them into other products)."
>
> This suggests that installing the binary is exactly what should be done:
It *can* be done, via the existing model, by constructing a
package that can be downloaded and added via pkg_add.
> ports are for end-user deployment, not for development. Incidentally, this
> is exactly what most (if not all) Java ports do currently: install the
> binary.
>
> More generally: the ports system should be adapted to the applications it
> is used for, not the other way around.
I disagree. I doubt we will persuade each other on this point.
--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer
behanna@bogus.zbzoom.net Remove "bogus" before responding.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012311822170.45453-100000>