Goal: Increased Modularity?

[Les Mikesell]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 08:15 -0500, Les Mikesell a écrit :
> 
>> That seems philosophically very wrong.
> 
> ...

Do you disagree with the idea that a JVM executing java bytecode should 
be very much like a media player playing a media file?  That is, 
installing the data should not be dependent on having some particular 
player or JVM available that might or might not be used to manipulate it 
later.  Why can't I have the app before the JVM or supply my own JVM?

>> That's not supposed to be the case.
> 
> ...
> 
>>  It's just annoying that the 
>> packaged location is different from what Sun uses
> 
> ...
> 
>> and Sun should be somewhat of an authority on matters pertaining to java
> 
> 1. You're welcome to found a better designed Java packaging project.

Do any of them understand that unix-like systems are multi-tasking and 
multi-user by nature, and that some of those multiple tasks and multiple 
user preferences are going to be different versions of the same thing on 
the same machine at the same time?  Apparently you do really get this at 
the application level if you were involved in building the packaged 
tomcat4/tomcat55 versions that can co-exist and do provide an obvious 
way to let the user distinguish between them.

> 2. SUN didn't care at all about the Java deployment problem space till
> it got sidelined by .Net and OSGi/Eclipse on the other. SUN's solution
> to the problem is JSR 277, which won't be deployed anywhere before Java
> 7 (mid-2008 at the earliest) and it remains to be seen if it will fly,
> crash or be rpm-compatible.

What does that mean?  Sun has had downloadable RPMs for a long time. 
Jpackage just doesn't work with them due to arbitrarily different 
locations.  And I don't see why there is any more relationship between 
the apps and the jvm than there would be between a source package and 
any number of compilers that might be used with it later.

>> - and even more annoying that in this long chain of questions I still 
>> don't have the simple answer
> 
> You were given information but chose not to listen. I won't waste any
> more time on the subject.

No one has given a usable answer for even a single value of JAVA_HOME 
for a single packaged jvm version.  Or the location of the document that 
provides this necessary information.  I'm sorry if that was too much to 
ask.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesll at gmail.com