|
Replies:
16
-
Last Post:
Feb 18, 2009 3:50 PM
by: ziesemer
|
Threads:
[
Previous
|
Next
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 3, 2008 10:22 AM
|
|
|
Is anyone able to locate the JDK 6 source code? The links binary and source on the left hand navigation bar appear to point to same content...
Download Source Snapshot Link -> http://download.java.net/jdk6/ Download Binary Snapshot Link -> http://download.java.net/jdk6/binaries/
Pages are identical. Can't find any source download links on either...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 6:05 AM
in response to: ziesemer
|
|
|
Does anybody know where I can download the source code of java rel 6? On the official web site the available links allow the download of the binaries but the link to the source code seems not to be working when triggered from within the Netherlands.
Can somebody let us know if the source code of java release 6 is going to be made available to the developers or not?
If it is already available, perhaps one of you coul dpublish the link so we dont waste our time looking for one ourselves.
cheers ioannis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 6:41 AM
in response to: ixanos
|
|
|
No source later than 6u3 ever appeared online as far as I know, and Sun appear to be completely ignoring repeated requests for clarification on what's happening in this "feedback" forum.
Even the links to 6u3 seem to have vanished now, though apparently the original download is still accessible if you happen to have the URL recorded:
http://download.java.net/jdk6/6u3/promoted/b05/jdk-6u3-fcs-src-b05-jrl-24_sep_2007.jar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 12:30 PM
in response to: maxbowsher
|
|
|
At least in JDK1.6.0_11, source code is distribuited with and installed by instalation file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 12:48 PM
in response to: charliemacias
|
|
|
This is only part of JDK's sources. You can't build the JDK from it. E.g. sun.* packages and native C sources are missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 5:16 PM
in response to: ulfzibis
|
|
|
Why do you need Sun's proprietary jdk6 sources? For debugging?
You can get full openjdk6 and openjdk7 source code from http://openjdk.java.net/ .
Dmitri
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 6:20 PM
in response to: trembovetski
|
|
|
I can't speak for ixanos, but for me, yes, that's the reason.
I'm hacking the charset coders, and at the moment I only can compile and debug against the very old 6u3 sources. See: https://java-nio-charset-enhanced.dev.java.net/ I would be happy, to upgrade my project to ongoing sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 8:22 PM
in response to: ulfzibis
|
|
|
Not to beat a dead horse, but why couldn't you use openjdk6 sources (or the icedtea project - although the binaries are only available on linux)? It passes a TCK so that should be good enough.
It's just that I doubt that they'll find time and people to put 6u10-11 sources out any time soon.
Dmitri
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 13, 2009 3:16 AM
in response to: trembovetski
|
|
|
If you have a live system running the Sun JDK, having the sources available for debugging it can be invaluable.
Anyway, if Sun simply decided they didn't want to spend the time, *and* actually announced that, I'd be - well, not happy, but I'd accept that. What I find utterly ridiculous is the way that absolutely no information is published at all, even after java.sun.com started linking to download.java.net as "get the sources here".
Actually, it's gotten even worse - the 6u3 sources which were published are no longer mentioned on the site, and links claim to point to sources but actually point to binaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 13, 2009 10:16 AM
in response to: maxbowsher
|
|
|
OK, looks like this will be addressed very soon. But then again, it was supposed to get fixed months ago when your original thread appeared.
Dmitri
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Jan 13, 2009 3:25 AM
in response to: trembovetski
|
|
|
This is sad, I think, there must be another reason, than having no time. Packing some little more files in a jar (maybe, it's still existing), and correcting some links, what much work?
Question against your's: Why does sun publish sources at all, when it's so much work? why did they stop after 6u3, and why did they delete the link to it later?
Your question: Did you had a closer look on my project's homepage? The output of my project should be a JAR, which could be preloaded via -Xbootclasspath/p: to patch a given JDK/JRE. This would be dangerous, if the referred sources would not be exactly the same. Since more than a year official JDK and openJDK go separate paths, so there might be differences of interest for me. If not, why it remains as a secret, which source bundle from openJDK matches to which official release?
If it should doesn't matter referring to openJDK's or official sources, than it also doesn't matter, referring to old 6u3. IMHO it should be better, to be up-to-date, and this is JDK 6u11, as most users rely on it, but rarely on openJDK-6.
-Ulf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Feb 18, 2009 10:36 AM
in response to: ulfzibis
|
|
|
While we're still working on fixing the main page, here's direct link to the JRL sources for 6u12: http://download.java.net/jdk6/6u12/
Dmitri
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: JDK 6 Source Code
Posted:
Feb 18, 2009 3:50 PM
in response to: mtpkwp
|
|
|
I had been in occasional contact with Ray Gans about this, but his java.net address forwarded to his @sun.com address, which no longer recognizes him as a user. (I hope all is well with him.) I then followed-up with Roger Yeung, who is the last person who I observed making updates on the jdk6 java.net project. He just replied today that the jdk6u12 source w/ JRL license is now available!
http://download.java.net/jdk6/source/
The links on the main https://jdk6.dev.java.net/ have been corrected as well. Hopefully this is kept up-to-date now with future releases. Thank you Roger and anyone else that may have been involved in fixing this issue!
|
|
|
|
|