Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:10:57 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Michael Vince <mv@roq.com>, Russell Francis <rfrancis@ev.net> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: JDK binary without X Message-ID: <p06230903c05d8fc7de7c@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <4437AA03.6090607@roq.com> References: <C769752C-B110-4480-882F-D5D10CF3026A@sf-net.com> <20060408032859.U947@ganymede.hub.org> <CE201DFE-3345-4AA8-8CE4-9A2455227121@sf-net.com> <44379918.3070404@ev.net> <4437AA03.6090607@roq.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:18 PM +1000 4/8/06, Michael Vince wrote: >Russell Francis wrote: >> >>I may be mistaken about this, but wouldn't not building with >>x-libraries make fairly large parts of the Java runtime >>environment ie java.awt.* & java.swing.* broken? >> >>If this is true, why would you want this? I suspect that >>many Java applications make use of functionality within >>these name-spaces even if they don't seem to be an >>"X based" application? > >Some people just want to use it for a Tomcat server. A lot >of people put something like > 'export CATALINA_OPTS=-Djava.awt.headless=true' >to disable it as its just extra things they don't have to >worry about. But that's your option (as a user). From Sun's perspective, they probably would want all the functionality to be in the system installation if we're going to call it a "blessed Java implementation". Ie, it could very well be that we couldn't get certified if we allowed java installations that did not have any GUI support. I seem to recall that Sun's java team was pretty big on the idea that all user-options should be runtime options, and not build-time options. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06230903c05d8fc7de7c>