Red Hat, Sun finally buddy up on Java

Discussion in 'Java' started by Ramon F Herrera, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    NetBeans into Eclipse...

    "Sun Microsystems' move to make its core Java software a true open-
    source project may still be a project in its early stages, but on
    Monday the effort produced some concrete results: a partnership with
    long-time holdout Red Hat."

    [...]

    http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9811395-39.html

    -RFH
     
    Ramon F Herrera, Nov 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ramon F Herrera

    Lew Guest

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    > NetBeans into Eclipse...


    Gods, I hope not!

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Nov 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ramon F Herrera

    Mark Space Guest

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    > NetBeans into Eclipse...


    I doubt it. This move is centered on the server space. More likely
    you'd see a merger of JBoss and Glassfish, or at least a feature swap.
    (But even a merger of those, I don't see as very likely.) I don't see
    anything that points at one side giving up their desktop IDE.
     
    Mark Space, Nov 6, 2007
    #3
  4. On Nov 5, 11:11 pm, Mark Space <> wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    > > NetBeans into Eclipse...

    >
    > I doubt it. This move is centered on the server space. More likely
    > you'd see a merger of JBoss and Glassfish, or at least a feature swap.
    > (But even a merger of those, I don't see as very likely.) I don't see
    > anything that points at one side giving up their desktop IDE.


    Mark & Lew:

    Perhaps a solution to keep everyone happy would be for the NetBeans
    team to follow on Borland/CodeGear's footsteps? NetGear would be able
    to contribute and impart their own kind on magic to an Eclipse base.

    Competition is extremely important, and I would be very worried to see
    Eclipse swallowing everybody else, the way they did with JBuilder.

    The one item in my wish list is that all Java IDE providers:

    - Had a common directory and file structure for projects
    - Allowed me to easily keep all the *.java files in a separate
    directory, accessible by all the IDEs that I use.

    As long as we have these annoying and counterproductive
    incompatibilities -such as a *.form file that can only be read by the
    original creating IDE- many developers are going the Microsoft route.

    -Ramon
     
    Ramon F Herrera, Nov 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Ramon F Herrera

    Lew Guest

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > The one item in my wish list is that all Java IDE providers:
    >
    > - Had a common directory and file structure for projects


    NetBeans sets up projects by menu choice according to the Sun Java Blueprints
    standard or the Apache Tomcat standard. Eclipse likewise follows the standard
    layouts for various types of Java projects. Other than the defaults for the
    names of certain non-deployed directories, which are easily changed in the
    options, the two create the same directory structures.

    The IDE-specific directories, such as "nbproject/" for NetBeans, aren't even
    portable within their own IDE, I've found. So much of the specific workspace
    is bound up in them. Likewise with the "workspace/" directories in Eclipse.
    Oh, the project files transfer, but somehow you just never can change the
    build or packaging. OTOH, when you create a new IDE-specific project tree for
    each workspace, NB or Eclipse, then you can filter that out when you transfer
    the project around. Ant is your friend, and it don't need your stinkin'
    project dirs. That's how you get true portability.

    Mind you, NB uses Ant for its project management files, so it really is
    portable. Uhh, except that their Ant files are structured the way they like,
    and pull in all this stuff you might not necessarily need for your production
    builds, say. So even though Ant uses your build files portably, your build
    files might not be portable. So, you leave the IDE project files out, too,
    even build.xml, and use your own build.xml for test and production builds, and
    you do not transfer the IDE build.xml between workspaces.

    > - Allowed me to easily keep all the *.java files in a separate
    > directory, accessible by all the IDEs that I use.


    I have never had trouble accessing the Java source directory, always distinct
    from deployment directories, disk-specific project information, doc
    directories and other source trees such as SQL, for the same project equally
    well from NetBeans and Eclipse. It's always a separate directory, and both
    products read it just fine, without any strain on my part.

    They also keep their build and deployment directories separate.

    The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our IDEs, but in ourselves.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Nov 6, 2007
    #5
  6. "Finally"? Redhat was the only distro with a functional java package
    (rather than the binary installer) for a long time. Sun and Redhat
    have been playing nicey-nice with each other for ages, relative to the
    linux community at large. :)

    On Nov 5, 7:41 pm, Ramon F Herrera <> wrote:
    > On Nov 5, 11:11 pm, Mark Space <> wrote:
    >
    > > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > > One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    > > > NetBeans into Eclipse...

    >
    > > I doubt it. This move is centered on the server space. More likely
    > > you'd see a merger of JBoss and Glassfish, or at least a feature swap.
    > > (But even a merger of those, I don't see as very likely.) I don't see
    > > anything that points at one side giving up their desktop IDE.

    >
    > Mark & Lew:
    >
    > Perhaps a solution to keep everyone happy would be for the NetBeans
    > team to follow on Borland/CodeGear's footsteps? NetGear would be able
    > to contribute and impart their own kind on magic to an Eclipse base.
    >
    > Competition is extremely important, and I would be very worried to see
    > Eclipse swallowing everybody else, the way they did with JBuilder.
    >
    > The one item in my wish list is that all Java IDE providers:
    >
    > - Had a common directory and file structure for projects
    > - Allowed me to easily keep all the *.java files in a separate
    > directory, accessible by all the IDEs that I use.


    *dons asbestos undergarments*

    People who voluntarily store critical parts of their source (like GUI
    layouts) in such a way that only one tool can possibly build it are
    creating their own problem, regardless of language.

    *removes asbestos undergarments*

    For myself, I've solved both of these issues with Apache Maven, which
    is capable of generating projects for several IDEs from a common
    codebase and project file. The process for getting a working eclipse
    environment for the projects I'm working on right now is:
    1. check out.
    2. mvn eclipse:eclipse
    3. Eclipse/Import/Existing Projects

    I found plugins for IDEA and Netbeans project generation, too.

    Rather than impose a specific standard source layout on every single
    tool[0], we should probably demand simpler, better-documented formats
    for project metadata and clearer conceptual mappings between tool-
    specific concepts (like Netbeans' "modules") and standard concepts
    (like "JAR").

    [0] I expect to be burned at the stake by other maven users for
    uttering that sentence. :)
     
    Owen Jacobson, Nov 6, 2007
    #6
  7. On Nov 6, 3:07 am, Ramon F Herrera <> wrote:
    > One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    > NetBeans into Eclipse...


    Nothing to wonder about. This is about IcedTea, RedHat's fork of
    OpenJDK. RedHat forked this (claiming it is no fork) because Sun made
    it impossible to contribute back to OpenJDK in bulk. IcedTea merged
    parts of Classpath into OpenJDK to get an unencumbered, clean free
    software Java. These changes couldn't be put back into OpenJDK,
    because Sun had wrapped OpenJDK in a bunch of red tape. Only
    individuals, singing a contributor agreement, could get stuff into
    OpenJDK. Now RH got a corporate contributor agreement. So RH can now
    put IcedTea changes back into OpenJDK. This is Sun's venue to finally
    get Classpath code into OpenJDK. Sun is very cautious about code
    contributed to any of their open source projects, fearing poisoning
    with non-free code. Now they have someone (RedHat) signing for that
    code and taking responsibility.

    Further, RedHat couldn't call the result from IcedTea Java, because
    Java is a Sun trademark and Sun requires that a product called Java
    has passed Sun's compatibility test. Now RedHat has got a license for
    that compatibility test. It is easy to guess what they'll try to do
    with that test: Making IcedTea the predominant OpenJDK-based free-
    software Java implementation/distribution on Linux.
     
    Hunter Gratzner, Nov 6, 2007
    #7
  8. Andrew Thompson, Nov 6, 2007
    #8
  9. Hunter Gratzner wrote:
    > Nothing to wonder about. This is about IcedTea, RedHat's fork of
    > OpenJDK. RedHat forked this (claiming it is no fork) because Sun made
    > it impossible to contribute back to OpenJDK in bulk. IcedTea merged
    > parts of Classpath into OpenJDK to get an unencumbered, clean free
    > software Java. These changes couldn't be put back into OpenJDK,
    > because Sun had wrapped OpenJDK in a bunch of red tape. Only
    > individuals, singing a contributor agreement, could get stuff into
    > OpenJDK. Now RH got a corporate contributor agreement. So RH can now
    > put IcedTea changes back into OpenJDK. This is Sun's venue to finally
    > get Classpath code into OpenJDK. Sun is very cautious about code
    > contributed to any of their open source projects, fearing poisoning
    > with non-free code. Now they have someone (RedHat) signing for that
    > code and taking responsibility.


    SUN is not the only one with strict contribution policies.

    Apache example:
    http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html
    http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
    http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

    Arne
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=, Nov 7, 2007
    #9
  10. Lew wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration of
    >> NetBeans into Eclipse...

    >
    > Gods, I hope not!


    Me neither.

    And I prefer Eclipse over NetBeans anyday.

    But an Eclipse monopoly on Java IDE would be a very bad
    thing for its future evolution.

    Arne
     
    =?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=, Nov 7, 2007
    #10
    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. Jared
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    689
    Harald Hein
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Sphenxes
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    349
    Sphenxes
    Sep 5, 2003
  3. AJ
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    389
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,257
    Malte
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Avalon1178
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    620
    Martin Honnen
    Sep 3, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page