On 12/02/2013 04:50 PM, Phil Race wrote:
On 12/2/2013 1:28 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
'j' sounds reasonable to me. However, I'm not really sure if the 'j2'
here is from 'j2se', 'j2re', or 'j2sdk', I would have to ask some
developers who did the original implementation. It could have been
simply to help avoid naming clashes with other software using these
names. A search for libjpkcs11.so brings up a few results. If that's
the case, I would prefer to leave the names as is.
As Mark indicated its from a marketing name.
When JDK 1.2 was shipped it branded as "Java 2".
Yes, I understand that now. The question directed to me was whether we
should remove the j2 from the names of the security libraries.
What I am not 100% sure is whether the 'j2' in those library names is
from "Java 2". The 2 simply could have been a way to avoid naming
clashes. IBM's JDK includes a pkcs11 library named libjpkcs11.so. Also,
pkcs11 support and the libj2pkcs11.so library were not added to the JDK
until 1.5, long after Java 2 was announced. Anyway, I'll go ask around
and try to find out.
--Sean
It didn't mean version 1.2, it was just a name. Other names were
considered too,
I still remember the ripple of horror around the large, packed, room
when the initial
proposal was revealed but that was dropped in favour of Java 2.
-phil.
