[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: bug#9088: Java support

From: John Calcote
Subject: RE: bug#9088: Java support
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:20:03 -0600


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:34 AM
To: Ralf Wildenhues
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: bug#9088: Java support

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
> * Jack Kelly wrote on Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 06:13:58AM CEST:
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM, tsuna wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> >> As my java foo is pretty weak, I'm not sure how to handle jar 
>> >> manifests, jar entry points, or other jar/javac subtleties and
advanced features.
>> >> Suggestions welcome.
>> >
>> > You can create the manifest manually fairly easily.  Here's an 
>> > example in the project I'm in the process of autotoolizing:
>> >
>> > 972eee6fdd1033d851/Makefile#L207
>> Perhaps there should be support for a foo_jar_JARADD, that by analogy 
>> to _LDADD, that specifies additional files to be included in the jar?
> Why would it have to be a new primary, instead of just reusing _LDADD?

Because, IMO, it's conceptually different. The output's being assembled with
`jar', not `ld'.

Actually...conceptually, a jar is identical to a library identical: A
library is an archive of objects. A jar is an archive of objects. Jar's
happen to be compressed as well, but that's irrelevant. Conceptually,
they're the same.

I would argue in favor of different names for political reasons. :) There's
still a fairly large rift between C/C++ and Java developers. 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]