Re: [java-gnome-hackers] topic for discussion

[Luca De R. <pie...@li...>]

Il sab, 2004-02-28 alle 18:31, Jeffrey Morgan ha scritto:
> On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 12:28, Mark Howard wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:45:08AM -0500, Jeffrey Morgan wrote:
> > > The core questions are "How will developers be using our bindings?"
> > Gnome/Linux apps - always have gcc; don't often have a jvm.
> > Embedded apps - low memory
> > Windows apps? (But would require compiled gtk)
> > 
> > > our bindings work with standard JVMs or should we take the approach
> > > that our bindings and all applications should that use them should
> > > use the gcc suite?
> > I recently released by bugwatcher app to Debian. Trying to support all
> > jvms will be virtually impossible. "Forcing" our users to use gcc might
> > be beneficial in terms of support.
> 
> My thought exactly.  If I were going to develop an application using
> java-gnome I would only compile it to binary.  This makes distribution
> and support much easier.  You don't need to worry if users have the
> 'correct' jvm on their system and you don't need to worry about things
> like classpaths and if all libs are in the LD_LIBRAY_PATH.
Easier support and distribution sounds good to me, and also the
performance speed up.
If gcj can compile the most of the apps around, that's fine and it seems
that we will only have benefits from this move. (When I've tried to
compile cromagnon with a 1 year old gcj, it failed because of
unimplemented classes, but AFAIK the situation now is way better).
-- 
Luca De Rugeriis <pie...@li...>