[lsb-discuss] Java

Darren Davis ddavis at novell.com
Mon Feb 4 07:54:06 PST 2008


Kay Tate wrote:
> In the Chiphopper whitepaper we brought to the last face to face, we found
> that 60% of the ISVs we worked with had at least some Java in their
> applications. 40% were 100% Java. These stats covered products from more
> than 350 ISVs. (We did get the white paper linked off of the last face to
> face if you are interested in a little more detail.) Many of our
> participants are fairly small ISVs whose products are targeted to specific
> market segments, so they are a little different constituency than some of
> our regular participants on this list.
>
> Perhaps because they are smaller, most of them are not eager to ship Java
> with their applications. Most of their applications seem to use well-worn
> paths in the Java environment and are JRE-agnostic. They work with Sun's
> Java on x86 and IBM's on PPC and S390 platforms without change. These ISVs
> really exploit the standardization of Linux and their environment. They
> need it to focus on their domain expertise instead of having to maintain
> code paths that are speciifc to different platforms to be competitive and
> to grow.
>
> These are the applications we want to be able to get LSB certified. Saying
> it the other way, we don't want to block a large number of ISVs from LSB
> certification because of the language they use if they have concerns about
> shipping it with their application. Having an LSB certified java runtime
> would be a distinct help to them and is something we can pursue with the
> Java teams without getting into legal questions.
>
> Best regards,
> Kay A. Tate
> ktate at us.ibm.com
> ibm.com/isv/go/chiphopper
>
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
>   

Having read through the  discussions I am falling into the camp that the 
LSB should not be responsible for a Java standardization process.  I 
think we have enough when it comes to C, C++, and the scripting 
languages that we already have added.  I do agree with Robert's 
suggestion that we should drive to have the JRE built as an LSB 
certified application.  I also agree with the comment that Alan made 
that the LSB can help define how an application finds the JVM and 
classspath, and I think that is what the JPackage effort was about.

 From my own perspective of some of Novell's products as well as the 
third party ISV's I have worked with most of them ship their own JRE due 
to the fact that it is a "certified stack" and they know the product 
works with the specified JVM.  I think there is enough effort going on 
in the JCP to define what Java is and is not, that we don't need to do 
that work here.  All that I feel that is needed is for Java application 
vendors that don't ship a JRE because they really do feel they are JVM 
neutral that there is a good chance the application will just run 
without issue by finding the system JVM and classpath.

Thanks,

Darren

---

Darren R. Davis
Linux Developer Evangelist
Novell Open Platform Solutions




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list