On 9/18/2014 11:06 AM, cowwoc wrote:
On 18/09/2014 1:31 PM, John R Pierce [via PostgreSQL] wrote:
> On 9/18/2014 10:17 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
> > Does it mean that there should be distributed many jvm.dlls for each
> > of the jvm versions?
>
> jvm.dll is part of the jre, its not a standalone library.
Right, so to recap: each platform will only need one jvm.dll/so library
(which you would update over time). You don't need to include one
version for Oracle JDK, OpenJDK, GCJ. You'd pick one, and bundle its
jvm.dll (I'd suggest going with Oracle's version since it has the best
stability/performance story). I don't believe there are any licensing
terms/requirements for private JREs beyond limiting which files you
redistribute, so from a licensing point of view I think the Postgresql
team would find it acceptable.
um, I'm pretty sure that dll/so doesn't work without the rest of the JRE
around it. I would think the platform packager would need to bundle the
whole 'private' JRE they chose including that jvm.dll/so, and install
that somewhere in or around the postgres code tree, along with the
pljava.so/dll that binds it all together, if the user chooses to install
pljava support.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
