Re: javax.naming work (Classpath vs ClasspathX)

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>]

Olivier wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:18:39PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>>Richard asked me not to work on the libgcj AWT.  He thinks it is
>>important to support Transvirtual, since they are a free software
>>company.  And since they derive 100% of their revenue from relicensing
>>AWT, releasing the libgcj AWT would undercut (his word) them.
>>
>Does that mean that it is actually possible to download Transvirtual implementation and somehow make it to work with gcj?
>

It may be possible, I don't know if anyone has ever tried. The problem 
with the Kaffe AWT is that it is GPL licensed and thus, in my non-expert 
opinion, not useful in a free Java implementation.

In addition, last time I checked it was a peerless implementation, 
working directly on framebuffer-type devices and not using a 
java.awt.peer style abstraction at all. This can be nice for embedded 
devices, but makes it less attractive for applications which want to 
integrate nicely with desktop environments - which is what I think GCJ 
is about. With the GCJ implementation the goal is to ship multiple peer 
implementations so you can choose whether you want native X, GTK, or 
whatever.

regards

Bryce.