Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 16:27:08 +0100 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@partitur.se> To: Cedric Berger <cedric@wireless-networks.com> Cc: Ernst de Haan <ernst@jollem.com>, "Koster, K.J." <K.J.Koster@kpn.com>, FreeBSD Java mailing list <freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Port for the Orion Server (J2EE Application Server) Message-ID: <3A50A1CC.425680B8@partitur.se> References: <59063B5B4D98D311BC0D0001FA7E4522026D7ADA@L04> <20001229144659.A24968@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> <3A4E0D67.BF6586CF@partitur.se> <3A4F8F02.4F8CFD51@wireless-networks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cedric Berger wrote: > > Palle Girgensohn wrote: > > > > Well, but -in the FreeBSD spirit- we will download the source files, which > > > need to be compiled before we get a JAR. We could let the port download the > > > JAR file, but I would not prefer this. I say we use our processor to do what > > > it does best: Processing!!!!! ;) Let's give this beast something to do! > > > > Agree. Also, when an important patch surfaces, it is easy to > > apply it to the port. > > Well, in Java, there is now an official way to 'patch' a jar file. > it's called a "jardiff" file, mime: "application/jardiff". > http://java.sun.com/products/javawebstart/jnlp-1_0-spec.pdf It is still a binary file (as in non-human-readable), so it is not obvious what has changed by looking at a jardiff file. Still, neat stuff. > In java, we must not forget that a jar file is not really a binary. > it's a 'pre-compiled' file, halfway between sources and binary. > The 'binary' only exists in memory after the JIT. Yeah, well, it not an executable, but it not really human-readable, and some people would call this a binary file; I guess it's a matter of definition... > I strongly object exercising the user processor, memory (try > running javadoc on a 32M system), harddrive (to install > compilers, etc, ... when not required) and patience just for > the fun of it. Um, well, there is always pkg_add, so this is really not an issue... I think it must primarily be up to the person porting to decide. It is obvious that porting a java app is easier when *not* building from source, but there might be occasions where building from source is better for various reasons. We should not enforce one way or the other, IMO. Just see to it that java stuff is installed the proper FreeBSD way and don't clutter $PREFIX/. This is much more important. /Palle 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?3A50A1CC.425680B8>