On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 04:38:53PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that > > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages > > to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) > > You mean using the JDK as the reference? A non-free thing? I don't like the > idea. If we have such dependencies, it can be to the Java Language > Specification, not to a particular implementation.
The Java language is meaningless for the versioning (unless we're talking about javac, jikes, etc.). You can compile from other languagues to bytecode. What matters here is the Java virtual machine specification. I agree that using jdk compliance is not a good thing, but it'd be better to provide a more complete list of what a jdk provides. For example, jdk 1.1 provides a virtual machine 1.1 (or a java runtime environment), java compiler 1.1, rmi 1.1, etc. jdk 1.2 will also provide things like swing, and so on.
