1996-04-30 - Re: Calling other code in Java applications and applets

Header Data

From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 15cef5e891f5d78b5cd2f427192fadf13465bf4ac2c522c1ab064b6c1021b070
Message ID: <v02120d2eadab7900c2ca@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-30 13:01:03 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 21:01:03 +0800

Raw message

From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 21:01:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Calling other code in Java applications and applets
Message-ID: <v02120d2eadab7900c2ca@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 21:50 4/29/96, Timothy C. May wrote:

>By the way, I had a discussion at a party with several Sun folks and other
>Java programmers, and they agreed that external code (C, for example) could
>be called, even by an _applet_, if arranged. For example, various
>underlying graphics routines in the AWT (Alternative Window Toolkit)
>package are of course using underlying code written in various other
>languages, code that has been reasonably optimized for speed.

I understand that calling C libs from Java is possible, but the details how
to go about that are still hazy to me. It is also unclear if Sun will
support this dual coding as a general capability that can be used by all
Java apps (don't think of Java just as downloadable applets) or require
that all modules, to give an example, for a certain soon to be very
relevant Java application to be written in 100% Java.

[...]
>The interesting thing here is that a crypto package, perhaps with
>speed-optimized underlying routines in C or even hand-coded machine
>language, could be released. It might be that patent holders (not that I am
>endorsing this) could license such packages to users.
>
>Thus,
>
>import java.bignum.*
>import.java.entropy.*
>import java.rsa.*
>import java.digicash.*
>...
>
>(Such packages may need approval by Sun, etc., and formal integration, a la
>AWT. But certainly there is talk of replacing AWT with something else, so
>changes and additions are clearly possible.)

Presumably, such packages would have to be signed by Sun. Needless to say,
these certificates would cost money. A potentially lucrative source of
revenue for Sun. Nothing wrong with that.


Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer.

-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
   PGP encrypted mail preferred.







Thread