Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: > On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:13 AM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > >> Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: >> >>> Package: java-package >>> Version: 0.27 >>> Severity: wishlist >> >> >>> I would be very interested in any arguments against making >>> java-package enable this to happen. Thank you. >> >> >> The simplest argument against it is: Its just not possible to use >> the non-free runtime classlibraries with a free runtime. AFAIK, for >> interaction between a runtime and the class library a VM interface is >> needed. And thats not the same between the non-free and GNU classpath >> derived runtimes. >> >> Wolfgang > > > Hmm. I was under the impression that the VM interface had become > sufficiently compatible for a full compatibility layer to be > straightforward. Class libraries consist of classes, and since there are > classes that work with both runtimes separately from any class library, > I thought that differences in functionality between the free and > non-free environments was primarily due to differences between the class > libraries, with the VM interfaces being relatively equal. If I was > mistaken, I am sorry.
The jni interface (and the newer jawt interface) should be compatible with the non-free implementations. The interface VM/Classlib can't be as it is AFAIK not defined anywhere by SUN. For information about the VM interface of GNU classpath see: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/docs/vmintegration.html Wolfgang _______________________________________________ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
