[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-05-28
jek3 at sun.com
Tue Jun 3 12:30:45 PDT 2008
Thanks for the clarifications.
Jeff Licquia wrote:
>>> 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".
I'm pretty sure the Sun (who owns the trademark) allows certified
implementations to call themselves Java. I believe there are rather
explicit statements prohibiting the use of the name Java for
non-certified implementations (certified in this case means JCK).
>>> 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
> 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.
I can still read this two ways,... maybe both:
It is desired that Java implementations use D-Bus.
Java applications need/desire D-Bus access methods.
>> 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.
A JNI module has a baroque, but very well defined interface with the the
Java Application. A lsb-compliant JNI module can use the well defined
interface (known as the LSB) to play well with the platform. As a
matter of fact, there *needs* to be some verbiage (in the LSB) that JNI
modules associated with the LSB conformant Java application are LSB
conformant themselves. (There *could* be a significant effort need to
generate tests to validate those words.)
> Might it make sense to define that binary ABI as part of the LSB?
Yes it might...
1) I think this might just come out of the "Java Specification".
2) As a process, I think we should get the interfaces for "Pure"
Java applications defined for the LSB first, and then worry about
Java/JNI applications. Just a "divide and conquer" thing.
More information about the lsb-discuss