Hi Sam, 1. This is an OpenJDK mailinglist. I typically don't look at the company names when someone writes to the list. If they have a role in OpenJDK, I'm already happy. There are Google engineers with OpenJDK roles, so I'd be happy if they participate. But we talk about technical things here, not marketing or politics. I do realise the need for those things to be taken into account, but I believe we have to look at the point from a purely technical point first.
2. OpenJDK runs very well on Android. I happen to be the project lead of OpenJDK/Mobile (https://openjdk.java.net/projects/mobile/) and discussions about OpenJDK on Mobile should happen there (and I highly invite you and others to participate there if you want to move Java forward on those client devices) 3. Those tools already exist, there are apps in the Play Store using Java 17. Gluon Substrate contains the relevant tooling. Having said that, I really want to focus on the original technical questions. I appreciate the concerns about the general position of Java, but in an OpenJDK context, I believe it is best to stick to the technical "details" and just make it happen. - Johan On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 2:08 AM Samuel Audet <samuel.au...@gmail.com> wrote: > Android actually includes OpenJDK these days, still only OpenJDK 8 at > the moment, but it is a project downstream to OpenJDK, so in my opinion > Google should definitively be part of the discussion. > > That said, it's not only Google's fault here, and let's not get into the > politics here, but even if Android didn't bundle OpenJDK, and we had to > install it like on other platforms such as Mac and Windows, it is still > a platform in its own rights with its own particular characteristics > that we need to take into account. Although it is based on Linux, the > kernel, it is not the same "Linux" as Fedora or Ubuntu, and if OpenJDK > is to go anywhere in the future, it has to start considering the needs > of Android, regardless of the political issues. > > Now, in the case of Android, it sounds like what you are proposing is to > create and maintain a set of tools parallel to Android Studio, but that > would also work with iOS, etc. Where do you see the funding come from to > keep up with all the features of Android Studio? Even Microsoft is > having trouble with Xamarin, their C# attempt at doing this... Frankly, > I don't think that's the right way to go about it, but I do think that's > the kind of discussion we need to have! > > Samuel > > On 9/27/21 5:38 PM, Johan Vos wrote: > > I'd be happy to see Google joining the discussion, but Android (as in the > > Java "clone") is totally unrelated to OpenJDK so I think it is unlikely > to > > see relevant input from that side. > > However, OpenJDK works great on Android-devices (and can be used to > create > > Android apps and upload them to stores), so *developers* targeting those > > devices are covered. > > > > What I hope to accomplish is to first of all get a discussion about the > > potential options for developers dealing with platform-specific (native > and > > Java) code. It would be great if there was support at the specification > > level for this best-practice, but that is probably something for the > longer > > term, as it will require more resources and lots of analysis, to make > sure > > backward compatibility is not broken. > > > > - Johan > > > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Samuel Audet <samuel.au...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I certainly hope so! But I don't see anyone, for example, from Google > >> representing Android, so what do we hope to accomplish, exactly? Let's > >> start by making the goals clear. > >> > >> Samuel > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 16:35 Johan Vos <johan....@gluonhq.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:55 AM Samuel Audet <samuel.au...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> If it wants to remain relevant, OpenJDK should really consider having > a > >>>> broader discussion about this. > >>>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>>> Please, please, do consider fixing the JDK instead of talking about > >>>> coming up with incompatible "solutions"! > >>>> > >>> > >>> I totally agree, but I believe this is exactly what we are doing now? > >>> > >>> - Johan > >>> > >> > > > >
