On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:47, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > hmm ... even better. Maybe instead of creating a new attribute for
> > category you instead have a flag attribute "JJar-Compatible: true". If
> > present it mandates specific interpretations of VendorID, Extension Name
> > and Version strings. In particular it would require that
> > VendorID/Extension Name look like package names. ie
> >
> > Extension-Name: org.jcp.servlet
> > Specification-VendorID: org.jcp.servlet
> > Implementation-VendorID: org.apache.jakarta
> >
> > and version strings look like <major>[.<minor>[.<micro>]]
>
> The current version construction is <major>.<minor>-<modifier> and not
> dictate much about that, other than we should prollie say major & minor
> are integers, and modifier is any ascii string sans spaces or something.
The problems is that the Extensions spec requires that version strings be in
Dewey decimal format. ie only numbers and dots. Thus modifier would violate
the Extensions spec.
> > Specification-Version: 1.2.3
> > Implementation-Version: 1.2
> >
> > This could be (somewhat clumsily) mapped to filename such as
> >
> > org.apache.jakarta/org.jcp.servlet-1.2.jar
>
> I would assume something like this would cause MSFT OS's to gag with all
> those dots
naah. It may look ugly if you are dos-only but there is no supported JVM for
dos-only.
--
Cheers,
Pete
Frank Zappa observed: "It's not getting any smarter out
there.You have to come to terms with
stupidity, and make it work for you."
