Will Webstart be integrated in OpenJDK?
frans at meruvian.org
Thu Sep 11 11:00:23 UTC 2008
i wish all as open as we want
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir at pobox.com> wrote:
> The lack of a free/open/public TCK for JDK 6 is simply a business decision
> on Sun's part.
> There's no other reason it can't be done right now, rather than have to wait
> for the as-yet-not-a-JSR Java7 (see : decision, business) to not only get
> started, but wait 18-24 months to complete.
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:24 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>> The biggest problem at the moment is the JCK. I'm quite happy for
>>>> Sun to use this to certify their own mashed-up proprietary/Free
>>>> builds inside Sun labs, and equally it's been great to see this
>>>> applied to a purely Free build by Red Hat. However, what disturbed
>>>> me recently was seeing this used as a tool for patch approval during
>>>> the AWT/Swing/Java2D discussion Mario mentions.
>>> Why not? A gcc patch that failed Plum Hall testing would be rejected
>>> too, assuming (or course) that the Plum Hall test was valid.
>> I couldn't find any recent examples of Plum Hall testing against gcc
>> patch reviews and rejection of patches because of them. But I am pretty
>> sure the submitter isn't responsible for getting a license agreement
>> with Plum Hall for contributing to GCC.
>> The problem with the TCK is precisely that you need to enter an NDA
>> agreement with Sun over it and that there is no public discussion about
>> the validity of the tests. Publicly it isn't even know which patches
>> went in because they made a TCK test pass or because they just
>> invalidated a TCK test and got it added to the exception lists.
>> The problem with the current NDA TCK setup is that that you cannot share
>> tests and code snippets from it with the rest of the community, your
>> users and customers. You either end up rewriting the tests so you can
>> publicly share it with others on the mailinglists. Or you have to say
>> "just trust me, the TCK tests for this particular corner case in this
>> particular way, so this patch is necessary even though I cannot really
>> proof it". Neither is really satisfactory. But I would opt for the
>> rewriting the tests so we have a free replacement.
>>>> A Free project being dependent on a proprietary test suite for
>>>> patches is just as bad as it being dependent on proprietary tools to
>>>> build. As Mark mentioned in reply to this, we should work towards
>>>> improving jtreg and Mauve to ensure a Free test suite is available
>>>> and not rely on the JCK.
>>> It's not going to happen. The TCK tests a whole lot of minute details
>>> of Java langauge compatibility that are not fully explained in the
>>> Javadoc, and so any open test suite that does not derive from the TCK
>>> will not be complete.
>> That could be true, but if so, it is even more important to get this TCK
>> issue resoled and get a free replacement. It clearly points out a
>> deficiency in our current documentation that you are unable to tell from
>> them what the details of a particular method or class really are.
>> I think having a free TCK should be one of the goals for JDK7 at least.
One Stop Java and Enterprise OSS Provider
Technopreneurship, Training, Internship, Outsourcing and Corporate
Mobile: +62 855 7888 699
Blog & Profile: http://frans.thamura.info
Training JENI, Medallion (Alfresco, Liferay dan Compiere).. buruan...
More information about the discuss