Re: The evils of /usr/share/java/repository
Jeff Turner wrote:
I can write a Hello World program just fine with a completely blank
classpath . In fact, I can write any program that uses java.* and
javax.* with nothing in the classpath except the package root.
$ javac foo.java
foo.java:1: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : class Servlet
location: package servlet
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:16:58PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
If people want that, they can use something analoguous to gcc's
Let's just suppose that some crazy people disagree with you, and don't
want miscellaneous libraries in their classpath.
However, note that -nostdinc is not the default!
Suppose these people
have been burnt by class version conflicts. Suppose these people get
upset when moving their program to a different system, and finding they
were unwittingly relying on some jar.
And how is this different from unwittingly relying on some .so?
You've now taken away the *choice* of those people. If the classpath was
left blank, developers are free to include the following in their
for i in /usr/share/java/*.jar; do
Requiring Java developers to modify their ~/.bashrc is not acceptable.
Now, are you feeling omniscient enough to declare that this will be fine
with *all* developers out there? That there will *never* be a situation
where an empty classpath is required?
No. However, we are talking about what the *default* should be.
I wonder why that is.. I don't remember using a 3rd party package beyond
Some people write more complex C or C++ programs than you do. If you've
ever compiled xemacs from source you might notice it looks for a lot of 3rd