Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well this is not a simple HelloWorld program, it is a servlet. And
> the classes is in servlet2.2.jar right now.
I'm sorry but I don't see your point. I'm not particularly
concerned about simple HelloWorld programs.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PR
Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want other jars to be considered "standard", put them in
> $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/ext/. This is a platform-independent equivalent
> of what you're proposing.
I'm proposing that the policy is that jars should be installed in
$JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/ext/, ex
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 04:21:09PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> >I can write a Hello World program just fine with a completely blank
> >classpath [1]. In fact, I can write any program that uses java.* and
> >javax.* with nothing in the classpath except the package root.
> >
Jeff Turner wrote:
I can write a Hello World program just fine with a completely blank
classpath [1]. In fact, I can write any program that uses java.* and
javax.* with nothing in the classpath except the package root.
$ javac foo.java
foo.java:1: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : class Servlet
loca
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:16:58PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
> >Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
> >completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose
> >which
> >to include?
> >
> Because you're causing a big hassle for
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
>
> I really like to comment that i do not think w
jeff wrote:
Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose which
to include?
Because you're causing a big hassle for anybody writing a Java program,
even "hello world".
It is one thing to ask packager
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 08:55:04PM +1000, jeff wrote:
But I'll spare you that ranting; let's just say I think it's a
horrifically bad idea to have a free-for-all in one's classpath.
I tend to agree, though I should point out that the opposite view
has support. For example, Pe
Jeff Turner wrote:
>I can write a Hello World program just fine with a completely blank
>classpath [1]. In fact, I can write any program that uses java.* and
>javax.* with nothing in the classpath except the package root.
>
$ javac foo.java
foo.java:1: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : class Servle
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:16:58PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
> >Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
> >completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose
> >which
> >to include?
> >
> Because you're causing a big hassle fo
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
>
> I really like to comment that i do not think
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
I really like to comment that i do not think we should punish those
who complied to the current Java policy, and use
lib-f
jeff wrote:
>Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
>completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose which
>to include?
>
Because you're causing a big hassle for anybody writing a Java program,
even "hello world".
It is one thing to ask p
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 08:55:04PM +1000, jeff wrote:
>
>>But I'll spare you that ranting; let's just say I think it's a
>>horrifically bad idea to have a free-for-all in one's classpath.
>>
>
>I tend to agree, though I should point out that the opposite view
>has support.
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:00, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> Ok. Lets standardize on the libfoo[version]-java names.
I really like to comment that i do not think we should punish those
who complied to the current Java policy, and use
lib-
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> > one?
>
> Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
> personally happier if we only allow one.
Consistency is good. :)
> Looking
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:32:51AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> > one?
>
> Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
> personally happier if we only allow one.
Consistency is good. :)
> Looking
> Well we have both ways in debian now. Should we allow both but prefer
> one?
Seeing as we're moving to enforce a single consistent standard, I'm
personally happier if we only allow one.
Looking through what the approximate list of all available java packages
(see first post to this thread) I f
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:42:14PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some
> > cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary.
> >
> > Is that ok if I change the policy in that way?
>
> Fine in general with me, although I have a question about ve
19 matches
Mail list logo
