www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apa...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: TSFKAJ
Date Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:07:44 GMT
--- Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@Sun.COM> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> 
> > thinking about this, I can see that Sun's Java SE
> stack is also  
> > going to have some fun here. If I were to take
> their stack, fix  
> > their networking to be laptop-aware and build it,
> how can I,  
> > myself, release that build without verifying that
> it passes the TCK?
> 
> That's the downside of defining Java as "the binary
> that passed the  
> TCK".  (Of course, there are upsides too.)  I had
> always assumed that  
> once SE was GPL'ed, there'd be lots of people
> shipping interesting  
> and useful deltas that aren't called Java.  
> "TSFKAJ, Toshiba  
> Satellite U205-S5068 version".  -Tim
> 
> PS: TSFKAJ = 'The Software Formerly Known As..."
> 
> 

According to the 176 specification as long as the
independent implementation doesn't modify the
specification specifics other value adds can be
included in someones II JRE. I would figure it would
have already been happening. I suppose it semi-sort of
has though not really legit.

I know there are some issues with what SuperWaba did
for instance. They have not implemented a J2ME
specification yet they implement much (not all) of the
JVM and some of the classes and interfaces from
different packages. It would be nice if subsets were
allowed to be created as long as they were not
distributed as Java runtimes so different innovations
could take place in different areas, but I certainly
don't want to have to try to support my Java
application on someone else's Java (yet it is not
really Java) installation for my applications as that
could get hairy real quick and customers would not
understand it, so I really love having the JCP protect
the specification and the base.

Wade

Mime
View raw message