Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:47:03 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> Cc: java@freebsd.org, hq@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some questions about Java ports Message-ID: <200510031647.03917.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20051003201930.GA55531@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <200510030230.j932Uwbo005425@blue.virtual-estates.net> <200510031435.33964.Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> <20051003201930.GA55531@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > so it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick one selection criterion > > > (version) and mix it with the simple yes/no of whether the port uses > > > Java or not. > > > > Why not continue mixing it? The yes/no is, literally, a one-bit value, > > but many bytes are used to store it. > > You appear to be asking me the same question that my previous quoted reply > covered. I meant to show, that picking one selection actually does make sense in my opinon -- designating a special variable is redundant. A "historical" reason is a perfectly good one to help select, which of the varibles to use. The other reason is that the desired Java version will always be there. > Herve in particular has spent a lot of time both documenting how this works > and converting ports from using the deprecated syntax to using the newly > supported syntax. I sure appreciate it. But hardwork implementing and documenting a design says nothing about the design's own merits. I realize, that I was not there, when you were designing, but I still can't help pointing at a better choice for this bikeshed's roof. -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510031647.03917.mi%2Bmx>