Re: about sun.net package

Discussion in 'Java' started by Jon A. Cruz, Jun 27, 2003.

  1. Jon A. Cruz

    Jon A. Cruz Guest

    VX wrote:
    > You guys are right...but if you think about it..using sun classes is way
    > easier in some cases especiall when you just want some basic functionlity.
    > in addition, they save you some coding time as well. i thinks thats the only
    > attraction in their use :)


    Except that in the long run they often are not.

    Instead of being universally robust, they have been written to work in
    the way that Sun was going to use them, and under the conditions that
    they would use them.

    More than one person has learned the hard way that the subtle bugs in
    use of say their base-64 encoding wasted weeks instead of the few days
    it would have taken to write their own.

    So, yes. You can start using them right away. But they won't work in a
    VM from IBM (some of the better performing VM's around), and they might
    not work in the long run at all.
     
    Jon A. Cruz, Jun 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jon A. Cruz

    VX Guest

    You guys are right...but if you think about it..using sun classes is way
    easier in some cases especiall when you just want some basic functionlity.
    in addition, they save you some coding time as well. i thinks thats the only
    attraction in their use :)

    "VX" <> wrote in message
    news:sqIKa.4559$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am trying to use sun.net.nntp.* package in one of my programs but it

    seems
    > to be not available in jdk 1.4.2
    > Does anyone know if this package was removed from jdk 1.4.x or simply
    > moved......
    > Also, can anyone tell me which jre contains sun.net classes.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    >
     
    VX, Jun 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. VX wrote:

    > You guys are right...but if you think about it..using sun classes is way
    > easier in some cases especiall when you just want some basic functionlity.
    > in addition, they save you some coding time as well. i thinks thats the
    > only attraction in their use :)


    With the downside of having to rewrite your code every time they change
    their implementation details, and of not being able to port your code to
    other platforms since the APIs you're writing against are not going to be
    there...

    --
    Darryl L. Pierce <>
    Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
    "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
     
    Darryl L. Pierce, Jun 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Jon A. Cruz wrote:

    > Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
    >> With the downside of having to rewrite your code every time they change
    >> their implementation details, and of not being able to port your code to
    >> other platforms since the APIs you're writing against are not going to be
    >> there...

    >
    > Umm....
    >
    > It's not a problem with 'port'ing. It's a problem with just plain not
    > being able to run it.


    I only mentioned porting in the respect that you'd have to bring it from
    platform to platform. Parts of the unsupported packages are going to be
    tied into JNI in some way, shape or form, and, as someone else mentioned,
    one company's JVM implementation is not going to have the same classes as
    another company's. So, you'd have to port them to run across VMs, which
    rather defeats the whole point of the OP's trying to use them. ;)

    > So it's worse than you described.


    Definitely. And growing more dire with each post... :D

    --
    Darryl L. Pierce <>
    Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
    "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
     
    Darryl L. Pierce, Jun 29, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James Cham
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    381
    James Cham
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. Roy Benjamin
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    561
    Mike Schilling
    Jul 23, 2003
  3. Joan MacEachern
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    347
    Joan MacEachern
    Oct 1, 2003
  4. Joan MacEachern
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    Joan MacEachern
    Oct 22, 2003
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,919
Loading...

Share This Page