R
rkehn
Does anyone know of any free Mac OS 10.2 compatible Java compilers.? (free)
Does anyone know of any free Mac OS 10.2 compatible Java compilers.? (free)
Does anyone know of any free Mac OS 10.2 compatible Java compilers.? (free)
Michael said:AFAIK all Java SDKs are free and include a compiler. Doesn't MacOS actually
come with an SDK preinstalled?
Andrew Thompson said:| Michael Borgwardt wrote:
|
| > (e-mail address removed) wrote:
| >
| >> Does anyone know of any free Mac OS 10.2 compatible Java
compilers.?
..
| Yup, it comes with 1.3, but there's an update to 1.4.
Is Mac OS 10.2 the same as Mac OS X?
Andrew Thompson said:Is Mac OS 10.2 the same as Mac OS X?
I heard that Mac OS 'X' (which, could mean '10'
..if we are Roman) came _standard_ with 1.4, and
that previous systems were stuck with 1.3..
Andrew Thompson said:::| Michael Borgwardt wrote:
:|
:| > (e-mail address removed) wrote:
:| >
:| >> Does anyone know of any free Mac OS 10.2 compatible Java
:compilers.?
:..
:| Yup, it comes with 1.3, but there's an update to 1.4.
:
:Is Mac OS 10.2 the same as Mac OS X?
:
:I heard that Mac OS 'X' (which, could mean '10'
:..if we are Roman) came _standard_ with 1.4, and
:that previous systems were stuck with 1.3..
:
id I get that wrong?
:
:--
:Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson said:| In article <[email protected]>,
....
| > I heard that Mac OS 'X' (which, could mean '10'
| > ..if we are Roman) came _standard_ with 1.4, and
| > that previous systems were stuck with 1.3..
|
| It's pronounced "Ten" except by those who haven't been
| paying attention.
And, just how would you pronounce '10'
..as a base 'ten' word?
Steve W. Jackson said:Apps that don't specifically say otherwise will run with 1.3.1
when launched. There's some file inside the bundle that must either
exist or have certain contents (not certain) in order to cause the app
to use 1.4.1.
Andrew Thompson said:"rbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| It's the Info.plist file in the application package, assuming
| you've neatly wrapped the app in a package.
Steve's response raised further questions,
but I was still mulling over whether to submit
them.. Then we get to your response.
What worries me is your reference to 'you'.
Do you mean, 'you' the _user_ has to do something
specific on the Mac before they can access 1.4?
Is that what you are saying?
rbs said::In article <[email protected]>,
:
:
:> | It's the Info.plist file in the application package, assuming
:> | you've neatly wrapped the app in a package.
:>
:> Steve's response raised further questions,
:> but I was still mulling over whether to submit
:> them.. Then we get to your response.
:>
:> What worries me is your reference to 'you'.
:> Do you mean, 'you' the _user_ has to do something
:> specific on the Mac before they can access 1.4?
:> Is that what you are saying?
:
:The "you" above in "assuming you've neatly wrapped" is you
:the programmer.
:
:If you (the programmer) are using Apple's free ProjectBuilder
r XCode as your IDE, then it will do the appropriate packaging
:for you, although you will of course need to set some values in
:the project's target settings.
:
:If you don't wrap the app in neat Apple packaging but simply
:distribute it as a Jar file, it will still run but the user
:will get whatever version of Java the OS thinks it should run.
:Which is probably 1.4.x if their machine is up to date. (There
:was a period last year when 1.4.1 was available for OS X but
:the system would default to using 1.3.1.)
Steve W. Jackson said:But I can tell you that 10.3 still has the 1.3.1 JVM on
board.
It's my understanding based on some material I read recently
that the default JVM used by a packaged app will be 1.3.1 unless the
entry described (and I'm assuming it's correct) says to use 1.4.1 or
newer (and 1.4.2 developer previews are available).
The bottom line, though, is that there are now enough variations in OS X
that you've got the same potential issues as if you were supporting
Windows or Linux systems: more than one JVM could be available. That
means having to take appropriate steps, or deciding which language
features to avoid, or insisting users have the latest JVM, etc. The
waters are becoming less clear than before.
unless the| "Steve W. Jackson said:....the default JVM used by a packaged app will be 1.3.1
Andrew Thompson said:::| In article
:<[email protected]>,
:
: > ....the default JVM used by a packaged app will be 1.3.1
:unless the
:| > entry described (and I'm assuming it's correct) says to use
:1.4.1 or
:| > newer (and 1.4.2 developer previews are available).
:|
:| You seem to be right. I just ran a test and if a packaged app
:has
:| /no/ JVMVersion setting in its Info.plist file, then you'll get
:| Java 1.3.1 even though Java 1.4.1 is on board.
:
:Where is the logic there? It is idiotic!
:1.3.1 apps will work under 1.4.1, whereas
:a 1.4 app is not gonna work on 1.3..
:
:Sounds like echos of the MS/JVM trick,
:but the interesting thing is that while that
:would work for a company that has a
:stranglehold on the market, it certainly
:will not for Apple.
:
:For those that would care to investigate Mac/1.4
:comatibility further, I found this page at Sun..
:http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/JavaLP/JavaToMac3
:/
Andrew Thompson said:| In article
unless the
| > entry described (and I'm assuming it's correct) says to use
1.4.1 or
| > newer (and 1.4.2 developer previews are available).
|
| You seem to be right. I just ran a test and if a packaged app
has
| /no/ JVMVersion setting in its Info.plist file, then you'll get
| Java 1.3.1 even though Java 1.4.1 is on board.
Where is the logic there? It is idiotic!
1.3.1 apps will work under 1.4.1, whereas
a 1.4 app is not gonna work on 1.3..
Sounds like echos of the MS/JVM trick,
but the interesting thing is that while that
would work for a company that has a
stranglehold on the market, it certainly
will not for Apple.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.