![]() However, there is one exception: when used within dbms_java.loadjava, relative path names are preceded by the value of ORACLE_HOME in ORAENV file. As a consequence, no relative path names are allowed for POSIX file names. The distinction between a native BS2000 file name and a POSIX file name is made by the preceding slash ('/'). Session character set specified in NLS_LANGÄ«S2000 PAM files in ascii can be created by transferring files (FTP) from an ascii platform to BS2000 in binary mode. None, that is, there is no means to change the default encoding. The following table gives an overview of the file types, location, default encoding, and encoding modifications for APIs or statements: In general files can reside in native BS2000 or in the POSIX file system, but there are exceptions. It is not absolutely straightforward where files used by Java have to be stored and how they should be encoded. Where can files related to Java reside and how should they be encoded? For more information, refer to Oracle Database Java Developer's Guide. When you try to enable Java in an existing Oracle database, you can use the Java related parts of this procedure as an example and modify it according to your needs, that is, increase dbsize, increase shared_pool_size, create a large rollback segment, run initjvm.sql, and so on. ![]() When you call $.SUPER and set the JAVA parameter to YES, you'll get a suitable ORAENV file (with ORACLE_HOME as described earlier), a database sized to Java requirements and Java installed inside the database. If you make up a feature that is gonna take a year to implement they should be able to veto it being included with the next iteration.12.1 Installation of a Java Enabled Database No one on the market but SUN has a 1.4 JVM. The number one reason I think this is that they are almost the only one implementing these new features. I think it's absolutely reasonable that SUN, where java was invented and where people truely understand java work, gets a veto power of the technology implementing new features. More than likely, they would only tell you to not call it Java. They aren't good yet, but that's because people like you spread FUD that SUN will come get you if you do it. There are a lot of things out there now that are GPL'd and they are implementations of java. Basically, they get upset when you infringe on their trademark. SUN has a problem when you call it Java and it isn't. There has never been a problem with that. If you want to GPL a java implementation, you can. That does not mean the code has to be covered by GPL, but it must be covered by a license allowing distribution under terms of GPL (LGPL, MIT, BSD revised. The only exceptions is part of the (Java in this case) platform itself. This software utility enables you to create an unlimited number of databases, as well as open already created ones from the HDD or from a URL. Udiet (Universal Database Import/Export Tool) allows you to migrate data from any JDBC-compliant databases to binary/XML files or other databases by simply editing configuration files. I think JBoss is proof that even though SUN hates that you exist, they see your right to make a GPL'd version of their specs. If an application contains any GPL code, than all code of the application must be distributed under terms of GPL. Download Universal Database Import/Export Tool for free. SUN is moving toward a free certifacation test for non-profit organizations so that GPL'd programs can become certified. If you want to implement something strange in your GPL'd version of Java, of course it's not gonna be Java anymore :) The JCP is where you air your complaints with Java, and a lot of the times, if it's not a crackpot idea (IE other developers agree), then you can get it included in all JRE's next round. I can't get to the article, but it seems to me that Sun's veto power is over the standard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |