On 11/29/2013 06:47 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
* Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com> [2013-11-27 12:16]:
On 11/27/2013 10:46 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
What security libs have j2 in their names?
libj2gss.so etc.
Any idea what the compatibility risk of removing the "2" would be?
This seems less prominent because it doesn't say "j2se", "j2re" or
"j2sdk" but I think it would be fine to rename these if the risk is
low.
Out of curiosity, what would be the replacement prefix for this (and
other native libraries)? Just 'j' instead of 'j2'? A name like libgss.so
is probably not a good idea, since then using the gss implementation
library (or another native library) which could have the prefix-less
name becomes problematic.
'j' sounds reasonable to me. However, I'm not really sure if the 'j2'
here is from 'j2se', 'j2re', or 'j2sdk', I would have to ask some
developers who did the original implementation. It could have been
simply to help avoid naming clashes with other software using these
names. A search for libjpkcs11.so brings up a few results. If that's the
case, I would prefer to leave the names as is.
--Sean
As a concrete case, an OpenJDK patch I am maintaining [1] tries to use
the system libjpeg instead of the one bundled with OpenJDK. The bundled
copy gets built with the code from upstream libjpeg as well as JNI
bits that are specific to OpenJDK. So I have to split it out into a
OpenJDK-specific library that links to the real libjpeg. I went with a
'java' prefix for the OpenJDK-specific JNI library, but I would like to
know if there is a consistent standard I should try and use. I am going
to try and push this patch upstream, if possible.
Thanks,
Omair
[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/system-libjpeg.patch#n191
