db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: building j2me support in Derby
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:56:48 GMT
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Right now, we need 2 jar files in order to build the small device 
>> support into Derby. Let me give them the following names:
>>
>> 1) foundation.jar
>>
>> These are the pared-back versions of the core jdk classes in packages 
>> like  java.lang, java.util, etc.
>>
>> 2) jsr169.jar
>>
>> These are the pared-back versions of the java.sql and javax.sql 
>> classes needed to implement jsr 169, the small device version of the 
>> JDBC api.
>>
>> Getting these jarballs is time-consuming and requires clicking 
>> through licenses. For these reasons, the small device support is an 
>> optional part of the Derby build. It would be good if we could 
>> eliminate this time-consuming, license-encumbered step so that the 
>> standard Derby build always compiled the small device support.
>
> It would be good to simplify the build but I'm not sure who this would 
> really help. For anyone using the official releases the J2ME support 
> is already there. For anyone building their own jars for J2ME then 
> they must already have the libraries for their own application.
This would reduce the thrashing for new Derby release managers.
>
>> I can knock on doors here at Sun to see if I can get Derby versions 
>> of these jarballs which are licensed for inclusion in our subversion 
>> repository and usable by Derby's build process. I can't promise that 
>> I'll succeed but I'm willing to try. Before I do this, I would like 
>> to hear the community's advice:
>>
>> A) Would it be sufficient to get versions which are licensed for use 
>> in the Derby build but not for commercial use? Would that satisfy the 
>> AS IS nature of our Apache license?
>
> Best to go to legal-discuss.
Thanks for that advice and for your follow-on post.
>
>> B) Are there other ideas about how we could get Derby unencumbered 
>> jarballs so that we always build the small device support?
>
> Two possible options:
>   1) Look for an open-source J2ME option, Motorola has done MIDP but I 
> haven't seen any Foundation open source projects.
I'm not aware of any either.
>   2) Take the Apache Harmony J2SE source and produce foundation & 
> jsr169 jar files.
>   2a) As 2) but kick off an Apache J2ME project so that all can share.
>
> Dan.


Mime
View raw message