geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why are we including native code in Geornimo (aka. JLine)
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:24 GMT

On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On 4/19/07, Ted Kirby <ted.kirby@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am uncomfortable with what feels to me like an architectural  
>> deviation.
>>
>> It would seem that an AG goal is portability to many platforms.  This
>> seems implicit with java, and certainly depends on java being
>> supported on many platforms.
>>
>> By using JLine, we are letting that package determine on which
>> platforms AG will run.  I would feel more comfortable with this
>> decision if JLine were an Apache project.  Going forward with JLine
>> raises the barrier of entry for a platform to support Geronimo: it
>> must insure that JLine runs on it, with possible native code  
>> required.
>>  Is this something we really want to do?
>
> I'm not following your logic.  According to the documentation, on
> platforms where JLine does not have a native library, it uses
> essentially the same code we used to use.  So it doesn't seem to me
> that there really are any portability limitations.  It may "work
> better" on certain platforms (that is, no possibility of password
> characters appearing on the command line), but on all other platforms,
> the behavior is no worse than before (that is, we try hard to wipe out
> password characters, but the occasional one shows up briefly).
>
> Still, back to the original issue, if there is some problem with where
> we set the tempdir for various configurations (and therefore how JLine
> deals with the native libraries), we should fix that.

Agreed. IIRC, we had a similar discussion when JLine was first  
introduced into Geronimo. I'm comfortable with JLine. If there are  
explicit issues, which we aren't recognizing, please let us know...

--kevan 
Mime
View raw message