On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:30:07 +0200, Patrick Monnerat wrote:

> Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>
>>> is there a reason that the Java classes don't belong to a package?
>
>> I now assume you speak about a java binding to libcurl.
>
>> They all make their own packages and releases of their projects. I
> don't think the java one is any different. Just make a package and put
> it somewhere. If you tell us about it we can link to it from the
> libcurl/java page on the curl site.
>
> Daniel, I think you've misunderstand what Thufir speeks about when he
> writes "package": in this context, this word does not mean a collection
> like a rpm or deb file, but rather the java package feature: this is a
> code structure above the class, and a java reserved word (Thufir,
> correct me if I'm wrong).

Thank you for explaining it, yes. I didn't understand what Daniel meant
by packages, nor, I think, he what I meant.

> The problem with the current curl-java bindings is: if the called class
> (CurlGlue) is not packaged (in the sense of java package), then the
> calling class cannot be packaged. The reverse is not true. This problem
> is particularly annoying because most java development platforms (like
> eclipse) requires you to package your classes.

Exactly my experience.

> I already have prepared a (java-)packaged version of the java bindings
> for curl, and sent them to Guenter for evaluation (this was months ago:
> I think he's very busy); this version works properly here and I'm
> waiting for Guenter's "green light" to commit it. But this is a major
> change, since it breaks what we can call the "Java ABI".
>
> I'm not a java specialist, but I had to deal with this problem for java
> people at our office, as the "local libcurl maintainer" ;-)
>
> Patrick
>
> P.S.: Guenter, if you have some time...

:)

-Thufir
Received on 2009-06-02