[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-05-28
jek3 at sun.com
Mon Jun 2 17:52:56 PDT 2008
Some of this I understand. Questions inserted. Mostly, its just a
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
Anything that needs to be compiled for each JRE is a very, very, bad\h\h\h
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.
More information about the lsb-discuss