Re: Proposal: merge Jessie as an external project

[Michael Koch]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:20:32PM -0500, Archie Cobbs wrote:

> What you're saying makes sense from the "packaging" point of view.
> I.e., I agree that it's nice to be able to download one thing and
> get the complete package. There should be a "JDK equivalent" in free
> software.
> 
> However it doesn't make as much sense from the developer's point of
> view. Classpath developers (I assume) want to focus on Classpath, not
> on maintaining Makefiles and 3rd party code build integration. Not to
> mention that some users of Classpath don't want all the extra junk,
> e.g., people targeting embedded systems.
> 
> I guess then what I'm arguing for is that maybe Classpath should be
> split into multiple projects: one to produce the "core core" Classpath
> code (i.e., the code that lives as source code in Classpath's CVS
> and originates there), and others to produce a "JRE equivalent"
> (which includes Classpath, Jessie, Xerces, etc) and perhaps a
> "JDK equivalent" (which inludes as well a java compiler, etc.).
> 
> I'm looking at Classpath as the former type of thing whereas you are
> looking at it as the latter type of thing. As Classpath exists right now
> it seems a lot more like the former. Instead of trying to morph it into
> a JDK/JRE replacement, let's create a separate project to do that.
> 
> I'm curious what other Classpath developers think...

I'm for merging it in too. It makes all our lives easier. The bloat problem
will be address after next release as I want to introduce some system to
control what gets inot glibj.zip and what not. This will help us and the
embedded folks (and especially to use pure GNU classpath with jamvm on my
WLAN router).


Michael
-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/