Konichiwa Takashi,
--- Takashi Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: JAVA_HOME and ant
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
> > I think the code in question (javadoc task) is going to be rewritten to use
&g
Konichiwa Takashi,
--- Takashi Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: JAVA_HOME and ant
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
> > I think the code in question (javadoc task) is going to be rewritten to use
&g
From: Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JAVA_HOME and ant
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
> I think the code in question (javadoc task) is going to be rewritten to use a
> delegation model soon anyway, as there is some demand to be able to run
> different j
From: Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JAVA_HOME and ant
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
> I think the code in question (javadoc task) is going to be rewritten to use a
> delegation model soon anyway, as there is some demand to be able to run
> different j
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> Ok, I'm also good at philosophical nitpicking :)
Great! :)
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > [...working ant...]How do you define normally?
> >> Just as it is now.
> >so the status quo, wit
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> Ok, I'm also good at philosophical nitpicking :)
Great! :)
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > [...working ant...]How do you define normally?
> >> Just as it is now.
> >so the status quo, wit
Hallo Dalibor,
Ok, I'm also good at philosophical nitpicking :)
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [...working ant...]How do you define normally?
>> Just as it is now.
>so the status quo, with ant having what we agreed upon to be some very badly
>designed code,
Hallo Dalibor,
Ok, I'm also good at philosophical nitpicking :)
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [...working ant...]How do you define normally?
>> Just as it is now.
>so the status quo, with ant having what we agreed upon to be some very badly
>designed code,
Hi Mark,
--- Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> * Javah relies on a special sun.com...javah.Main class. Doesn't matter..
> > >gcj comes with gcjh which should be able to do everything javah does
> > >(given the -jni flag).
> >
> > But as it is now, it won't be useable form ant. O
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yes, but to make this policy os do something else is IMO not possible.
> >> Especially, if we have to consider, that ant should behave 'normaly',
> >> when used to develop java apps in, for example, eclipse.
> >How do you define normally?
Hi Mark,
--- Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> * Javah relies on a special sun.com...javah.Main class. Doesn't matter..
> > >gcj comes with gcjh which should be able to do everything javah does
> > >(given the -jni flag).
> >
> > But as it is now, it won't be useable form ant. O
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yes, but to make this policy os do something else is IMO not possible.
> >> Especially, if we have to consider, that ant should behave 'normaly',
> >> when used to develop java apps in, for example, eclipse.
> >How do you define normally?
Hallo Mark,
* Mark Wielaard wrote:
>Try gij-3.3:
Don't have that just now... Yes, unstable is calling, even starting to
scream...
>> All compilers I know should be satisfied by that.
>OK. I am not a big Ant user. gcj needs a -C option to compile to byte
>code though. Or a --main and -o option
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 17:29, Jan Schulz wrote:
> * Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >gij does come with a normal long-option --classpath. But as the gij help
> >output says: "Options can be specified with `-' or `--'."
>
> --8<-:- snip -:-8<-:- snip -:-8<--
> [EMAIL PROT
Hallo Mark,
* Mark Wielaard wrote:
>Try gij-3.3:
Don't have that just now... Yes, unstable is calling, even starting to
scream...
>> All compilers I know should be satisfied by that.
>OK. I am not a big Ant user. gcj needs a -C option to compile to byte
>code though. Or a --main and -o option
Hallo Mark,
* Mark Wielaard wrote:
>gij does come with a normal long-option --classpath. But as the gij help
>output says: "Options can be specified with `-' or `--'."
--8<-:- snip -:-8<-:- snip -:-8<--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/$ gij-3.0 --help
Usage: gij [OPTION] ... CL
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 17:29, Jan Schulz wrote:
> * Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >gij does come with a normal long-option --classpath. But as the gij help
> >output says: "Options can be specified with `-' or `--'."
>
> --8<-:- snip -:-8<-:- snip -:-8<--
> [EMAIL PROT
Hallo Mark,
* Mark Wielaard wrote:
>gij does come with a normal long-option --classpath. But as the gij help
>output says: "Options can be specified with `-' or `--'."
--8<-:- snip -:-8<-:- snip -:-8<--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/$ gij-3.0 --help
Usage: gij [OPTION] ... CL
Hi,
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 20:21, Jan Schulz wrote:
> Ok, I don't actually mind. The only real argument I have is that it
> looks better, if you have all requirements defined with comandline
> arguments, not environment variables. But ok... neither gij-3.0 nor
> gij-wrapper-3.0 have a -classpath op
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>> >Then why push for $JAVA_HOME, which suffers from the same problem?
>> Because I think there are a lot of programs, which rely on the
>> 'java.home' property to be set. Here is for example the result on
>> going thru the ant tasks. ant is IMO one of the important
Hi,
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 20:21, Jan Schulz wrote:
> Ok, I don't actually mind. The only real argument I have is that it
> looks better, if you have all requirements defined with comandline
> arguments, not environment variables. But ok... neither gij-3.0 nor
> gij-wrapper-3.0 have a -classpath op
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>> >Then why push for $JAVA_HOME, which suffers from the same problem?
>> Because I think there are a lot of programs, which rely on the
>> 'java.home' property to be set. Here is for example the result on
>> going thru the ant tasks. ant is IMO one of the important
> >Then why push for $JAVA_HOME, which suffers from the same problem?
>
> Because I think there are a lot of programs, which rely on the
> 'java.home' property to be set. Here is for example the result on
> going thru the ant tasks. ant is IMO one of the important packages,
> which should be made
> >Then why push for $JAVA_HOME, which suffers from the same problem?
>
> Because I think there are a lot of programs, which rely on the
> 'java.home' property to be set. Here is for example the result on
> going thru the ant tasks. ant is IMO one of the important packages,
> which should be made
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>I'm really not sure what you mean here. At the moment, using $CLASSPATH
>is somewhat *more* portable across different JVMs than using -classpath.
>In particular, it doesn't suffer from the ever-changing command-line
>syntax, nor does it override the bootstrap class
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>I'm really not sure what you mean here. At the moment, using $CLASSPATH
>is somewhat *more* portable across different JVMs than using -classpath.
>In particular, it doesn't suffer from the ever-changing command-line
>syntax, nor does it override the bootstrap class
26 matches
Mail list logo
