Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 May 2001 07:03:28 +0930
From:      Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com>
To:        Ernst de Haan <ernst@jollem.com>
Cc:        java@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Java port behavior ideas
Message-ID:  <20010526070328.A18869@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010525215138.A55928@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl>; from ernst@jollem.com on Fri, May 25, 2001 at 09:51:38PM %2B0200
References:  <3B0C3A63.3020908@quack.kfu.com> <200105241911.f4OJBtS32613@mail.uic-in.net> <20010526045110.A18502@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20010525215138.A55928@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 09:51:38PM +0200, Ernst de Haan wrote:
> Agreed. While on the subject I would like to bring in the discussion of the
> JDK and JRE port efforts as well. At this moment, we have a port named
> linux-jdk (package `linux-jdk1.2.2') which installs the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2
> for Linux. However, the linux-jdk13 port (package `linux-jdk1.3.x') installs
> the Sun JDK 1.3.x. There is a Blackdown JDK 1.3.x for Linux too, but where
> does it fit in this limited naming scheme?
> 
> My suggestion:
> 
>    Current port name       New port name
>    -----------------       -------------
>    linux-jdk               linux-blackdown-jdk12
>    linux-jdk13             linux-sun-jdk13
>    linux-jdk14             linux-sun-jdk14

This is good.  Presumably the IBM JDKs fit in as linux-ibm-jdk##.

> And perhaps even:
> 
>    jdk                     jdk11
>    jdk12-beta              jdk12

If this is what happens, why not make the move to sun-jdk11 and sun-jdk12
respectively.  If IBM ever decide to do a FreeBSD port of their JDK then
we're ready for it :).  It also seems to fit in consistently with the
naming scheme for the Linux versions.

A couple of questions though:

1. What if we want to add the Sun Linux JDK 1.3.1 but still keep the
   Sun Linux JDK 1.3.0_02 port (due to 1.3.1 having some bugs which
   are fixed in 1.3.0_02).  How does this fit into the scheme?

2. Do we want a way of differentiating between JDKs which are built
   from source and JDKs we have a binary of?

> > For jar files which fall into the second category, it might be useful
> > to have a common directory which contains symbolic links to all of
> > the files.  This directory could then be linked to jre/lib/ext for all 
> > JDKs > 1.2 so that you didn't need a hideously big CLASSPATH.
> 
> Uhm, what about multiple versions of the same library? For example, a lot of
> software comes with a xalan.jar file. And they all use just that specific
> version x.y.z that doesn't work with x.y.w....
> 
> I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I'm just wondering how we'll handle
> versioning and name conflicts.

Hmmm, I must admit I hadn't thought through all the details, I was just
throwing out an idea at that point.  Its certainly something (linking into
jre/lib/ext) which has reduced my pain level with development.  Clearly
there are some rough edges though.

				regards, Greg
-- 
Greg Lewis                            Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond                           Mobile: 0419 868 494
Information Technology                Web   : http://www.eyesbeyond.com


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?20010526070328.A18869>