Canonical Will Remove Java From Ubuntu
dennisml at conversis.de
Thu Dec 22 13:12:25 UTC 2011
On 12/21/2011 06:52 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 05:09 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> On 20.12.2011 19:30, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>> Probably because OpenJDK and SunJDK aren't really that compatible.
> Well, hold on. Both the proprietary JDK and OpenJDK meet the
> specification, and we try very hard to be compatible with all
> the things that Java programmers assume. And we fix compatibility
> bugs if we can.
I wasn't saying that this was the fault of people involved in OpenJDK. The
problem is that the applications rely on behavior that is part of the
platform but not mentioned in the specifications. You cannot expect
different implementations to behave the same way when it comes to things
that weren't specified in the first place.
>> I am afraid that most of these problems are caused by stupid developers
>> who are using (against all advices they were given) com.sun.* classes
>> (which I am said is the most common source of problems). There is no
>> protection against stupid programmers, I am afraid.
> There really is very little difference between the com.sun.* classes
> in OpenJDK and the proprietary JDK, as far as I know. Of course, I
> haven't really checked, but... ;-)
The more important question is if Sun didn't want people to use the
com.sun.* classes then why did they include them in the platform?
In my opinion the root cause for these incompatibilities is that the
platform simply isn't defined well. If you want to make good on the claim
"write once run anywhere" then you actually have to make an effort to come
up with a robust core. Injecting vendor specific stuff in there is pretty
much doing the opposite of that.
More information about the devel