Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-26 Thread Manfred Moser
On Saturday May 26 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Hm. All this is a bit extreme. Even the Linux kernel changes its > > API all the time and things are working okay. > > This really is grossly unfair to the kernel deveopers, who go to > great lengths to avoid breaking t

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-26 Thread Andrew Haley
Marcus Better writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > In my opinion, Java libraries without stable interfaces shouldn't be > > deployed in free OSes. > > That's a nice goal but unfortunately the world is not so perfect, > because users occasionally require new software with shiny new > bells and

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-26 Thread Andrew Haley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Quoting Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In my opinion, Java libraries without stable interfaces shouldn't be > > deployed in free OSes. If they are to be used, you're going to have > > to change the jar name, but even that may not work: if you use such a > >

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-25 Thread Florian Weimer
* Marcus Better: > I think the Java policy needs to be tweaked to allow for multiple versions > of the same library. The problem is much easier than for C libraries, since > we don't have a dynamic linker, so the user is responsible for adding the > correct library to the classpath. Not quite tru

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-25 Thread Marcus Better
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I could not agree more. I assume you mean the packager needs to > reference the right version of a library. That too, but also the _user_ who runs third-party code using the library, and needs to set the classpath. > I actually have a question about that. What do we nee

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-25 Thread manfred
Quoting Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Andrew Haley wrote: In my opinion, Java libraries without stable interfaces shouldn't be deployed in free OSes. That's a nice goal but unfortunately the world is not so perfect, because users occasionally require new software with shiny new bells and

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-25 Thread Marcus Better
Andrew Haley wrote: > In my opinion, Java libraries without stable interfaces shouldn't be > deployed in free OSes. That's a nice goal but unfortunately the world is not so perfect, because users occasionally require new software with shiny new bells and whistles. Besides we cannot control upstrea

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-24 Thread manfred
Quoting Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Mike Hommey writes: > I have a java library package, called libmozillainterfaces-java, > that is provided by xulrunner. I'm currently working on a new > upstream release of xulrunner which changed the java interfaces: > some interfaces changed names

Re: Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-24 Thread Andrew Haley
Mike Hommey writes: > I have a java library package, called libmozillainterfaces-java, > that is provided by xulrunner. I'm currently working on a new > upstream release of xulrunner which changed the java interfaces: > some interfaces changed namespaces, so you have to do changes to > your s

Java policy and ABI changes

2007-05-24 Thread Mike Hommey
Hi, I have a java library package, called libmozillainterfaces-java, that is provided by xulrunner. I'm currently working on a new upstream release of xulrunner which changed the java interfaces: some interfaces changed namespaces, so you have to do changes to your source code, and xpcom initializ