Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:48:21 -0400 From: "John Daniels" <jmd526@hotmail.com> To: ernst@jollem.com Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: JDK ports revisited Message-ID: <F253Az2Z1XAKItivRRn00013e6c@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ernst de Haan wrote:
>Well, this depends. There are pros and cons for both approaches. Most
>people prefer not having a third digit. This group does not include me,
It seems to me that three digits has the advantage of clarity and
practicality.
1. Let's say you are currently using jdk 1.4.1. You update your ports tree
(*), goto /java and find the the following list of jdk's (there are no
versions greater than 1.4.x):
jdk14
jdk14-beta
jdk14-sun
linux-sun-jdk14
linux-ibm-jdk14
linux-blackdown-jdk14-beta
Do you have the latest version? Which one is the latest? Has your
preferred jdk(s) been updated to a new version since you last downloaded it?
These questions could be even more confusing to people who are not java
professionals. If a professor tells his students to be sure that they have
the latest jdk for the final class assignment/project (or even "make sure
you use jdk 1.4.3") -- how many students will not find the lastest version
because they assume that all the "jdk14"s indicate the same version?
* Note: searching for "jdk" on the freebsd website is a bit better than your
java directory because a short description is printed, but even some of
these short descriptions only say: "Sun's Java Developers Kit" without
(currently) listing the version. If all jdk descriptions are to contain the
full version numbers (in the future), will the port maintainer always
remember to update the description?
2. Shouldn't we accomodate the preference or need of some people for earlier
versions (due to changed feature set, bugs, company standard, etc.)? At
least for a short time?
This is not to say that 2 digits is not the better format, I just haven't
seen a discussion of issues above. A 3 digit format does not force freebsd
to automatically provide all possible jdk's. Bloat might better be
eliminated by policy, not the naming scheme. I'd be surprise if there was
much call for any but the latest versions of the 1.1.x and 1.2.x jdk's (and
in a year, only the latest 1.3.x jdk's).
A hybrid approach could also be considered: two digits for older jdk's, 3
digits for the most recent one's. In that case 1.1.x and 1.2.x jdk's would
now be: jdk11 and jdk12, while 1.3.x and 1.4.x jdk's would use three digit
version numbers. (But this lacks consistancy)
John
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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?F253Az2Z1XAKItivRRn00013e6c>