[RFC] Would there be a need for a java-wrappers package?

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

Hello Igor,

Personally, I'd much prefer a Free alternative to Java under Cygwin to a 
wrapper for Cygwin around Java. That notwithstanding, I think it is a 
good idea to have access to Java from Cygwin, so if you think it is a 
better idea to make wrapper scripts as opposed to ITPing a free Java 
implementation, by all means - you'll have my vote in either case :)

rlc

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

>Hi, all,
>
>I would like to hear opinions on how useful a java-wrappers package would
>be.  The package will contain a few shell scripts that allow users to
>invoke the regular Java SDK tools (java, javac, javadoc) from Cygwin,
>making them look like their Unix counterparts (i.e., POSIX filenames).
>The scripts would be updated versions of those posted in
><http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-01/msg00174.html>.
>
>There are a few reasons why I have misgivings about this.  First off, some
>tools (notably Ant and Tomcat) recognize Cygwin and do something specific
>to Cygwin anyway, which will probably (most likely) get screwed up if the
>java they find looks like a Unix version (this did happen to me with Ant
>and Cygwin-native jikes).  Secondly, the tools will certainly not be
>foolproof (although I'll try my best to make them as robust and autonomous
>as possible).  Thirdly, java versioning may become a problem.
>
>Besides which, there's a procedural stumbling block in that all of my
>packages so far have been binary packages, and I'm not too sure exactly
>how to release a no-source one.
>
>For most of the above reasons, this is not an ITP yet.  FWIW, I'm also
>planning to package jikes (which compiles OOTB) at some point soon, but
>I'd like to first work out, among others, the Ant bug mentioned above.
>
>Thanks for your (eventual) input,
>	Igor
>  
>