On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:34:09PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > Hmmm, well you may not like it, but it is increasingly standard > > practice, and not dissimilar to the way that new software is added to > > operating systems like Plan 9, it also works more nicely for .jar files. > > You can't possibly have every piece of software referenced in a path > line, and that isn't what people are doing. Instead they are using shell > scripts that set the classpath before executing with every program - > resulting in a Windows like situation where every program is distributed > with all it's dependancies (making the effort toward unique naming > completely pointless).
I don't think that we should be worrying about the woes of Java software distribution, we should be worrying about what makes life easiest for us and our users. Adding a directory to a classpath and the removing it afterwards does not preclude use of other pre-installed libraries. I agree that it would be a better world if java software was always spliced into a global tree on a machine during installation, but we don't live in that world, and if we pretend that we do, it will be a world of pain for all. > > I really don't think this is practical, for example, it makes upgrading > > software a pain in the butt, and there is no established place on any > > operating system to place this mythical unified Java tree. Trying to > > pretend that a practice exists when it doesn't will only make things > > more of a pain for everyone. > > It would seem to me that being able to locate all the existing classes > would make upgrading a hell of lot easier (say there is a bug in a > crypto class used by twenty programs - good luck if every program dumped > it in the jar where nobody can see it). Yes, all very well if there was a pre-existing cross-platform standard practice to place all Java class files in a well known and unified tree, but there isn't. > > > This otoh is a good idea. It should be "freenet". > > > > Why? > > All other packages we use have lower case letters. It isn't a big deal, > and certainly not worth the effort of moving everything in CVS - but if > you are planning to do that anyways. Let me think about it. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020102/67f9aee0/attachment.pgp>
