[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: jdk1.2

Mark Wielaard Writes:
> Also note that you probably don't want to use JDK 1.2 if you are working on
> any of the free Java implementations. Clause 1 of the Supplemental License
> Terms says:
> > [You] may not create, or authorize your licensees to create
> > additional classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are contained in
> > the "java" or "sun" packages or similar as specified by Sun in any
> > class file naming convention;
> Which seems to prevent us from making our own implementation of the
> standard java classes using the JDK. (Wouldn't you love to make a
> java.util.bzip2.Bzip2InputStream? You can't with the jdk.)

I disagree with this.  To me (that is my opinion), adding a class to 
java.* would be the equivalent of writing a C compiler and adding functions
to 'stdio.h'.  If you come to 'expect' those functions to be in the "standard"
packages, then they code is no longer compatible across multiple JVMs.  This
negates what many people view as a HUGE advantage of Java.

I don't think you should (even in free/non-Sun implementations) ever add to
the java.* tree.  You should create your own package completely.  At the
very least, if you still hung up on the 'java.*" type name, then use
'javax.*' ala, swing, servlets, mail api, etc.

---- Cris J H

Reply to: