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