Re: Query about Help Needed

[Joerg Brunsmann <joerg_brunsmann at yahoo dot de>]

Jim Schatzman wrote:

> For example, would it be helpful to have an FSF 100%-Java version
> of Java 2 extensions?  I would like to get involved but I need some

To answer your question other people on the mailing 
list are more qualified than me, but I wanted to add 
one or two notes to your question: it's sad but true that 
open source projects often do similiar things in parallel 
without finishing. Being more concrete, the project at

  http://oje.sourceforge.net

tries to implement these extensions. And of course there's

  http://www.classpath.org

Perhaps convincing and involving the author of the 
'Open Java Extension' to move to gcj is a great goal?

Anyway, the gcj which ships with the gcc 3.0 snapshots are 
quite nice these days (it's no pain to compile the jakarta 
'ant' tool and compiling 'junit' is just fun) so I guess 
it's the right time to begin with this kind of work.  

Before starting to think about such an implementation, I 
would definitively want to suggest to clear the wanted
packaging of such software. Bryce already mentioned that 
the security package get's quite large. I guess the 
extensions will be large, too. So the questions rise:
should the extensions be supplied in a separate package?
Should a gcj configurator (someone who does run the 
configure script) be able to select from a set of packages?

One day a gcj compiled EJB container want to see the light.
It'll need jndi and rmi. So perhaps it makes sense to start 
with the javax/naming and java.rmi and then with javax/ejb ;-)

Have fun,

Jörg


__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de