Experimental UNICODE-only MinGW Build
Fri Nov 21 13:49:00 GMT 2003
Mohan Embar wrote:
> Let's not forget that Java is UNICODE by nature. We only break out
> of that for locale-specific stuff and in some cases, to accomodate an
> OS API.
As I already wrote, I agree with this.
> Again, why the resistance to the inclusion of a tiny 245K DLL?
You don't need to include Unicows in the gcj bundle: this solves license
problems. The developer will download it separately and add the dll in
the setup bundle of his applications.
> First of all, I would like to think that all of my actions thus
> far have proven that despite my being appointed to review Win32
> patches, that I have taken a democratic approach to the point of
> disqualifying myself from making this decision.
> Secondly, I do not want to break Win9X for one of the main reasons
> you mentioned: the continued use of this OS in developing countries.
> I take this very seriously. I do not consider the requirement of the
> inclusion of a 245K DLL as breaking Win9X.
> Thirdly, Win98 is due to enter its non-supported phase in a couple of
Italy is not as advanced as US, but it's not Bangladesh. But many people
here use Win98/Me, simply because they bought PCs with those OSes
installed and they don't care of any kind of update or support. This is
mostly true in offices, especially in companies that don't have a
sysadm. Recently I've seen a PC where the mouse is not able to drag
icons anywhere (??Â¿Â¿??)
wxWindows is supporting Windows 3.1...
I "vote" for the dev path proposed by Mohan, I totally agree with him.
More information about the Java