[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-05-28

Joseph Kowalski jek3 at sun.com
Mon Jun 2 17:52:56 PDT 2008

Some of this I understand.  Questions inserted.  Mostly, its just a 
little terse
for me to understand.

Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Robert: Java status?  Jeff: mostly as talked about on the list.  Might 
> be an issue with architectures not supported by OpenJDK.

This is kinda a misnomer.  It would be better to say that "the OpenJDK
community hasn't produced an implementation" for some architecture.

> IBM interest in contributing to OpenJDK?  George: high level issue.
> Best approach might be for Ted to bring it up to IBM higher-ups.

Is this a suggestion that IBM might be willing to supply ports for the
MIA architectures?  Would be cool.

> Ron: different JRE 
> compatibility?  George: IBM JRE is certified.  Kay: high level of 
> compatibility.  Darren: his experience also.

Isn't that the point of the LSB?

If this is a reference to "quirks" of each JRE, there shouldn't be any 
for a LSB compliant application.  If its outside the LSB (and JSR 
classes), well sure.

> George: one drawback: a11y 
> needs to be compiled for each JRE, so multiple JREs per arch are not 
> good.


Anything that needs to be compiled for each JRE is a very, very, bad\h\h\h
questionable application.

What is this beast?

> Jeff: DBus?  George: not sure; depends on the implementation. 
> There is a DBus implementation for Java.

I'm really surprised to see "DBus" and "Java" in the same paragraph.
Is this a desire for extra classes for access the DBus, or is this something

> Thiago: needs 
> platform-specific code.

Not sure what this is about,... assume something called Thiago.

Lots of things need platform-specific code - called via the JNI.
That's not the same thing as "compiled for each JRE" (ally).

Yea, I could Google ally and Thiago, but its probably better just
to discuss the specific issue.


- jek3

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list