www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory Winston <rwins...@eircom.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:13:00 GMT

I had forgotten about the RMI issue - very interesting. I used to use 
VJ++ back in the day for a while, and I was a fan. I was friendly with a 
MS Java evangelist (now seems like an oxymoron), and there were some 
great technologies in there, but evidently many legal issues.


Steve Loughran wrote:
> Rory Winston wrote:
>>> 2. Its a shame that IPR rights are coupled to TCK compliance. Much 
>>> of that is a hangover of Visual J++, though how you write a TCK that 
>>> verifies that the Harmony team havent invented a new keyword 
>>> "delegate" escapes 
>> Hangover of VJ++? Really? How so?
> As I recall, VJ++ 1.0 was microsoft's first implementation of Java, 
> bundled with IE, and with an IDE integrated with Visual Studio (which 
> was then two product lines, the existing MSVC++ IDE and the visual 
> interdev suite for internet development). It had a fairly fast editor, 
> and a debugger that would let you step in to the bytecodes, that being 
> something they thought you needed. (In MSVC dev you do need to do 
> that, and understand enough x86 asm to make sense of what your code is 
> doing).
> VJ1.1 was different, it was the MS attempt to take control/innovate on 
> the platform
> -new keyword, "delegate", which lets you provide callbacks based on 
> the method signature, rather than interface implementation.
> -javadoc comments that let you define COM bindings for operations, and 
> a good COM library bridge.
> -some extra stuff in the java packages
> -no RMI in the normal distribution, it was only available as a Zip 
> file somewhere on the ftp.microsoft.com site
> The problem was, the negotiated license wasn't adequate to deal with 
> these. it didn't say "you cant add stuff" and although there was a 
> requirement to redistribute everything in java.* and javax.*, putting 
> it up on an FTP site was, microsoft argued, adequate. I ended up 
> writing an ActiveX control that forced the download; anyone who hit 
> the page would get a copy installed.
> This is why, today the T&Cs of the java and jcp licenses are so strict 
> about
>  -adding stuff to the java, javax packages (no additions)
>  -taking stuff away (the completeness requirement)
>  -compliance: you can't just comment out the RMI stuff and throw 
> connection refused exceptions
> It's not just about retaining control/profit, its stopping anyone from 
> taking control away from Sun/the JCP.

View raw message