[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.




Darren R. Davis
Linux Developer Evangelist
Novell Open Platform Solutions

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list