On 18/09/2014 2:21 PM, John R Pierce [via PostgreSQL] wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, that's what I meant. I just wanted to reinforce the fact that you
don't need to bundle multiple JVMs (Oracle, OpenJDK and GCJ). You'd pick
one and bundle it alongside PG and pl/java.
Gili
View this message in context:
Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core? Sent from the
PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.