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

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Tue Jun 3 07:58:29 PDT 2008

Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Some of this I understand.  Questions inserted.  Mostly, its just a 
> little terse
> for me to understand.

Yup.  I have to lead and take notes at the same time, so the notes can 
sometimes be a little mystifying, or require some background knowledge.

> 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.

Sure, and that was the sense of the call.

>> 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.

It was a suggestion that maybe IBM *should* help with those ports. 
Whether they're willing or not isn't known.

>> 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?

Sorry.  "Certified" -> "Java trademark compliant", meaning Sun is OK 
with IBM calling its JRE "Java".  The compatibility comments were in 
regards to running diverse applications on the IBM JRE.

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


> Anything that needs to be compiled for each JRE is a very, very, bad\h\h\h
> questionable application.
> What is this beast?

This is a bridge between Java's accessibility framework and the Linux 
framework, called AT-SPI.  AT-SPI currently is built on top of CORBA. 
For some reason, hooking Java into it requires special stuff.

George Kraft is a member of the LF Accessibility workgroup, and is much 
more familiar with the details, so maybe he can explain.

>> 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
> else?

In general, D-Bus is becoming the standard IPC mechanism on Linux for 
lots of things.  GNOME and KDE have both announced (and in KDE's case, 
implemented) that they are moving to D-Bus for this, so I expect it to 
become interesting on Solaris, too.

More importantly from our point of view, the a11y people are busy 
porting AT-SPI from CORBA to D-Bus, so in the future the aforementioned 
a11y bridge will need to know how to do D-Bus.

>> Thiago: needs platform-specific code.
> Not sure what this is about,... assume something called Thiago.

Nope.  Thiago Maceiera is a developer for TrollTech, who was on the call 
and observed that the Java D-Bus implementation needs platform-specific 

There's nothing about D-Bus that should, however.  The D-Bus people are 
very good, and have standardized it both at the ABI level and at the 
protocol level.  The Mono people recently redid their D-Bus bindings to 
be 100% managed code, so I imagine the same should be possible for Java.

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

So JNI should be stable enough from a binary ABI perspective that a JNI 
module compiled with, say, Sun JDK should run on IBM's JRE?  That's good 
to know.

Might it make sense to define that binary ABI as part of the LSB?

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list