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 <[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/, exc
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 PRO
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:05:20PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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
* Ola Lundqvist
| We do now have the problem of versioning. But is it possible to
| "Provide: foo.jar (= 1.2.3)".
|
| If not that should be a great advantage.
Versioned provides aren't supported, and as Andrew writes -- this will
just lead us into file-dependency hell. Not a good idea, imho.
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.
> >
>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> My proposal does not say anything about /usr/bin/java, except that
> the default classpath should include jars of installed packages.
> I am agnostic about the specifics of how that is done.
Note that there are no default CLASSPATH. As
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:21:41AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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
> conce
> My mistake; only java.* works. 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.
But not JVM-independent. Bear in mind that we need a solution that works
for all JVMs out there, inclu
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
My proposal does not say anything about /usr/bin/java, except that
the default classpath should include jars of installed packages.
I am agnostic about the specifics of how that is done.
Note that there are no default
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:10:52AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> >
> >>My proposal does not say anything about /usr/bin/java, except that
> >>the default classpath should include jars of installed packages.
> >>
> 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?
Well, keep in mind that the original e-mail that started this thread argued
that Debian was a *developer*-unfriendly system.
Whe
> 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
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Yes it bothers me too. What bothers me more is that someone (I
do not remember who) told me that I should name my package
libxalan2-java instead of lib-xalan2-java.
This was probably me. I had a long discussion with Stephane Bortzmeyer
(original author of the Java policy) abou
Okay, so have I got this right? The proposal is to have a directory for
"standard" jars that are auto-included in the classpath for every JVM,
and a directory for "optional" jars that must be manually specified by
startup scripts, etc?
Ben.
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?
IMHO that's the best thing to do. Each packaged application knows which classes
it depends on and can include them into th
> A different story is the naming of JARs inside the package. It might make
> sense to include the version there, so instead of
> /usr/share/java/xerces.jar I could use /usr/share/java/xerces-1.4.1.jar
> and create a symlink or using alternatives. But then some suggestions
> like automatically inc
Ben Burton wrote:
- *All* jars be placed in the optional jar directory, this being
/usr/share/java as it is now.
Ok. We could still discuss if application-specific JARs, e.g. for Tomcat
the Jasper JSP engine, should be put there or in /usr/share/app/lib/
as probably nobody ever wants to include th
Ben Burton wrote:
Okay, so have I got this right? The proposal is to have a directory for
"standard" jars that are auto-included in the classpath for every JVM,
Yes, though how this is done is to be determined. For example some JVMs
might not have an "extensions" directory, or if they do it has t
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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
> Okay, so have I got this right? The proposal is to have a directory for
> "standard" jars that are auto-included in the classpath for every JVM,
> and a directory for "optional" jars that must be manually specified by
> startup scripts, etc?
Essentially, that's what I'd like to see. However, I
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
contains "standard" jars? This means that no package should automatically
put jars or symlinks there. This would be /etc/java/default-classp
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> My solution to the above problem is at:
>
> http://newgate.socialchange.net.au/~jeff/jpe/
Well, I guess what I'm hoping for is to make the learning curve less steep.
I envision being able to download some java source onto a fresh D
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:44:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > My mistake; only java.* works. 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.
>
> But not JVM-independent. Bear
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:05:20PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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
* Ola Lundqvist
| We do now have the problem of versioning. But is it possible to
| "Provide: foo.jar (= 1.2.3)".
|
| If not that should be a great advantage.
Versioned provides aren't supported, and as Andrew writes -- this will
just lead us into file-dependency hell. Not a good idea, imho.
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.
> >
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> My proposal does not say anything about /usr/bin/java, except that
> the default classpath should include jars of installed packages.
> I am agnostic about the specifics of how that is done.
Note that there are no default CLASSPATH. A
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:21:41AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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
> conc
> My mistake; only java.* works. 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.
But not JVM-independent. Bear in mind that we need a solution that works
for all JVMs out there, incl
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>>My proposal does not say anything about /usr/bin/java, except that
>>the default classpath should include jars of installed packages.
>>I am agnostic about the specifics of how that is done.
>>
>Note that there
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:10:52AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> >
> >>My proposal does not say anything about /usr/bin/java, except that
> >>the default classpath should include jars of installed packages.
> >
> 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?
Well, keep in mind that the original e-mail that started this thread argued
that Debian was a *developer*-unfriendly system.
Wh
> 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/jr
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Yes it bothers me too. What bothers me more is that someone (I
> do not remember who) told me that I should name my package
> libxalan2-java instead of lib-xalan2-java.
This was probably me. I had a long discussion with Stephane Bortzmeyer
(original author of the Java pol
Okay, so have I got this right? The proposal is to have a directory for
"standard" jars that are auto-included in the classpath for every JVM,
and a directory for "optional" jars that must be manually specified by
startup scripts, etc?
Ben.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
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?
IMHO that's the best thing to do. Each packaged application knows which classes
it depends on and can include the
> A different story is the naming of JARs inside the package. It might make
> sense to include the version there, so instead of
> /usr/share/java/xerces.jar I could use /usr/share/java/xerces-1.4.1.jar
> and create a symlink or using alternatives. But then some suggestions
> like automatically in
Ben Burton wrote:
> - *All* jars be placed in the optional jar directory, this being
> /usr/share/java as it is now.
Ok. We could still discuss if application-specific JARs, e.g. for Tomcat
the Jasper JSP engine, should be put there or in /usr/share/app/lib/
as probably nobody ever wants to inc
Ben Burton wrote:
>Okay, so have I got this right? The proposal is to have a directory for
>"standard" jars that are auto-included in the classpath for every JVM,
>
Yes, though how this is done is to be determined. For example some JVMs
might not have an "extensions" directory, or if they do it
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:15:59AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 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
> Okay, so have I got this right? The proposal is to have a directory for
> "standard" jars that are auto-included in the classpath for every JVM,
> and a directory for "optional" jars that must be manually specified by
> startup scripts, etc?
Essentially, that's what I'd like to see. However, I
Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Basically yes, but IMHO this should be the decision of the local admin
> and not of the package maintainer. How could he know ig his package
> contains "standard" jars? This means that no package should automatically
> put jars or symlinks there. This would be /etc/java/defa
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> My solution to the above problem is at:
>
> http://newgate.socialchange.net.au/~jeff/jpe/
Well, I guess what I'm hoping for is to make the learning curve less steep.
I envision being able to download some java source onto a fresh
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:44:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > My mistake; only java.* works. 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.
>
> But not JVM-independent. Bear
45 matches
Mail list logo
