javax.naming work (Classpath vs ClasspathX)

Sat Oct 20 18:25:00 GMT 2001

Olivier wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:18:39PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>Richard asked me not to work on the libgcj AWT. He thinks it is
>>important to support Transvirtual, since they are a free software
>>company. And since they derive 100% of their revenue from relicensing
>>AWT, releasing the libgcj AWT would undercut (his word) them.
>>>Does that mean that it is actually possible to download Transvirtual implementation and somehow make it to work with gcj?
>
It may be possible, I don't know if anyone has ever tried. The problem 
with the Kaffe AWT is that it is GPL licensed and thus, in my non-expert 
opinion, not useful in a free Java implementation.
In addition, last time I checked it was a peerless implementation, 
working directly on framebuffer-type devices and not using a 
java.awt.peer style abstraction at all. This can be nice for embedded 
devices, but makes it less attractive for applications which want to 
integrate nicely with desktop environments - which is what I think GCJ 
is about. With the GCJ implementation the goal is to ship multiple peer 
implementations so you can choose whether you want native X, GTK, or 
whatever.
regards
Bryce.