Re: javax.naming work (Classpath vs ClasspathX)

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi (moved from java-patches to java discussion list),

On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:46:45PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Thanks, please check this in.
Done.

> FYI I recently modified the comparison script so that it doesn't check
> anything in javax.*.  I did this because my understanding was that
> javax.* classes would go into ClasspathX and not Classpath.
I was just going through my mail and saw your patch. It does not work.
The compare page now actually shows all the javax packages :)
Which I don't think is wrong (see below).

> FWIW I've never liked the fact that there are two separate projects,
> one for java.* and one for javax.*.  However, I'm resigned to it.
Actually the distinction is not about java.* vs javax.*. The GNU Classpath
project was setup to give us a set of free standard java library classes.
So in principle all standards defined by what Sun calls J2SE (Java 2 Standard
Edition) will become part of Classpath (some day). Whatever package they are
in.

The GNU Classpath Extensions <http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/>
project was setup to work on all extension classes that are not part of
the standard classes. They mainly work on things that are defined in what
Sun calls J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) which might or might not be
defined in the javax.* packages. (It includes things like the Servlet API,
Java Mail, Bean Activation framework, etc.)

> For one thing dealing with ClasspathX means another licensing discussion.
> I'm really burned out on those.
There is some communication between the projects. And the ClasspathX
people seem to agree that using the Classpath/libgcj GPL+linking-exception
license is OK. But I know what you are talking about. It is to bad that
there is not a clear GNU standpoint that can be shared by all the GNU
projects working on java stuff. And the copyright of the ClasspathX project
is not assigned to one party so getting to change it later will be a pain.

Which reminds me of the AWT discussion from a while back. Any word on that?
(All the Classpath/libgcj awt work is copyrighted by the FSF but it is
distributed under different licenses which makes merging impossible.)
Someone would contact RMS about it but I never heard the result.

Cheers,

Mark
-- 
Stuff to read:
    <http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore