It's my personal goal that it be run well behaved Java client (swing and swk) and server apps (tomcat, jboss, etc, etc) perfectly. In short, any 100% pure java app will run. We must keep in mind that older versions of Eclipse for OSX are hardcoded to use the built in Apple JVM's and ignore the JAVA_HOME Env variable. In a phase 2 we could get ther IcedTea extensions built on the Web so we get the Webstart. Stuff and other goodies.
On 10/26/10, MiB <digital.disc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 24 okt 2010 kl. 13.56 skrev Lussier, Denis: > >> I believe that getting IcedTea to work on an OSX port is a great >> thing, but... I I think this should be an extended goal that's >> tackled first for OpenJDK 7 (since it already builds on OSX). >> >> I think the milestones toward getting a robust OSX release for >> OpenJDK 6 should be: >> >> 1.) Get a baseline build of the latest OpenJDK 6 code bundle >> (currently b20) to build on OSX 10.5 Intel in 32-bit mode. There >> should be a minimal set of patches applied to the make files and >> source code similar to what is currently done for OpenJDK 7 BSD port. >> >> 2.) Get the above build working as a universal binary. > What are the possible pitfalls of making it build and then run on PPC? > >> >> 3.) Make sure the above Universal binary runs really well on 10.4 >> PPC thru 10.6 Intel. > I assume this means "run well in a compatible fashion on 10.4 Intel/ > PPC, 10,5 intel/PPC as well 10.6 Intel". Perhaps obvious, but I just > want to make it that. :-) > > The problem I've had with Landon Fullers Open JDK 7 2009 beta- > compilation – Thanks Landon! – is I'm not sure how to make it a full > citizen. I've reset JAVA_HOME pointing to it and for some apps, like > CLI apps, this works fine and others, like Eclipse or specifically > Springsource Tool Suite refuse to run on it. Netbeans accepted it as a > target VM, but I haven't been able to start up Netbeans with on it. > > This leads me to the issue what distributions the Mac openJDK should > be compatible with. Is it the openJDK on other platforms or the OS X > java implementation style? In 10.6 it's easy to add additional JVM's, > but seems less so in 10.5. > > > /MB > > > >
