jek3 at sun.com
Mon Apr 21 15:05:20 PDT 2008
Well, despite being able to subscribe to lsb-java, there seems to be no
such list. Oh well. Using lsb-discuss. Tell me if I should do
I think the previous threads and our conference call seemed to close the
issue that Java is part is intended to be part of the LSB. Specifically:
1 Java interfaces are to be exported by the LSB (as much as a
specification can actually export anything). For the most part, this
will be "specification by reference", but a number of details will be
LSB specific, such as installation locations and supported CLI utilities.
2 A JVM contained in a LSB compliant distro does not necessarily
need to be otherwise LSB compliant, meaning the the distro JVM can
depend upon non-LSB interfaces. In fact, this is a feature because it
allows distros greater freedom to innovate, probably along the
performance axis. (Possibly delta installation locations, but that's a
lower level topic.)
3 Of course, a non-bundled JVM (as in java.sun) may or may not be
otherwise LSB compliant. However, non-bundled JVMs which can claim LSB
conformance should have a marketing advantage.
3a It is likely that most distros will desire to use JVMs which can
assert they are LSB compliant. At this point in time, most distros
would want the "most easily supported" (and robust) JVM they can get.
4 There is nothing special about applications which embedded a JVM
(or carry along a private JVM --- yecch, but not too rare) with respect
to the LSB. It would probably be prohibitally difficult to embed a
non-LSB compliant JVM (as in #3 above) into an application wishing to
assert LSB compliance.
If we can agree on these 4 bullets (massaged as appropriate) we can
proceed to lower levels of specification. If not, well, let's talk (but
I think we had rough agreement on the con-call).
Let's get those cards and letters coming...
- jek3 (Joseph Kowalski, Sun Microsystems)
More information about the lsb-discuss