On 18/09/2014 2:21 PM, John R Pierce [via PostgreSQL] wrote: > > Right, so to recap: each platform will only need one jvm.dll/so library > > (which you would update over time). You don't need to include one > > version for Oracle JDK, OpenJDK, GCJ. You'd pick one, and bundle its > > jvm.dll (I'd suggest going with Oracle's version since it has the best > > stability/performance story). I don't believe there are any licensing > > terms/requirements for private JREs beyond limiting which files you > > redistribute, so from a licensing point of view I think the Postgresql > > team would find it acceptable. > > um, I'm pretty sure that dll/so doesn't work without the rest of the JRE > around it. I would think the platform packager would need to bundle the > whole 'private' JRE they chose including that jvm.dll/so, and install > that somewhere in or around the postgres code tree, along with the > pljava.so/dll that binds it all together, if the user chooses to install > pljava support.
Yes, that's what I meant. I just wanted to reinforce the fact that you don't need to bundle multiple JVMs (Oracle, OpenJDK and GCJ). You'd pick one and bundle it alongside PG and pl/java. Gili -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Why-isn-t-Java-support-part-of-Postgresql-core-tp5819025p5819533.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
