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

cldc and midp java



Hi,
I recently started investigating to bring proper java toolchain support
into OpenEmbedded and began to think about the way this handled in
similar environments. Due to packaging work for maemo I got my hands on
cacao-cldc a virtual machine that runs a subset of the J2SE java class
library.

I want to start a little discussion about the future support of the
different Java profiles in Debian. In the hope for the best outcome in
Debian as well as for getting even more insight into the topic to
support my OE work.

By packaging MIDPath for Maemo I got in contact with a third Java
standard namely J2ME or more specifically MIDP2.0 .

With cacao we have a JVM codebase that can be compiled to run either GNU
Classpath (~J2SE1.5), soon Icedtea (J2SE1.6; which is to become OpenJDK
hopefully) and midpath-cldc (CLDC1.1; slightly modified cldc.jar from
Sun's PhoneME project).

MIDPath in conjunction with either a CLDC or (inclusive!) J2SE providing
runtime can provide the MIDP2.0 profile.

Last but not least. Sun's PhoneME is free software too and could be
installed to provide CLDC as well.

Now Debian like every other distribution has no notion of these
different Java profiles. It only knows javaX-runtime and
java[2]-compiler and java-virtual-machine. These are virtual packages
for either development purposes or the smaller runtime-only variants.
These packages implicitly assume talking about "J2SE".

How is Debian going support the other profiles?

Regards
Robert

-- 
tarent Gesellschaft für Softwareentwicklung und IT-Beratung mbH

Heilsbachstr. 24, 53123 Bonn    | Poststr. 4-5, 10178 Berlin
fon: +49(228) / 52675-0         | fon: +49(30) / 27594853
fax: +49(228) / 52675-25        | fax: +49(30) / 78709617
durchwahl: +49(228) / 52675-17  | mobil: +49(171) / 7673249

Geschäftsführer:
Boris Esser, Elmar Geese, Thomas Müller-Ackermann
HRB AG Bonn 5168
Ust-ID: DE122264941

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: