|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
| I have 15 years of Java experience, but I don't kid myself
that I could
instantly write a *decent* android app, just
like that.
Of course there
would be a lot of the environment that I
would be comfortable with - and could
include many of my
favourite Apache libraries.
However, the semantics of
get an app to work within an
Android environment wouldn't be trivial. Getting
things
right related to events, services, background threads etc
would all be
a pain.
I'd imagine the difference being something like swapping
from the
desktop or applet environment to the servlet (or
app server)
environment.
The book
Professional Android 4 Application Development has
over
800 pages devoted to this, and is already aimed at
experienced Java
programmers. Not much different from the
books that aim at J2EE-style
development.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
So the answer then is "no, they don't run as-is".
I think that's going to be fatal to Google's case, if they had gone through some
length to allow J2SE apps to run as-is the interoperability argument would have
been pervasive. Now it looks more like an excuse after the fact.
Harmony could make a strong case here, as it clearly sets out to be
interoperable. On that note it would be odd if the same code was found to be
infringing in one case but not in another. It might be worthwhile for Google to
bring that line of reasoning to the Judge's attention.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:30 AM EDT |
> Your quick answers are rubbish. The questions ask about Applications, not
> compiled bytecode. Applications written in java for the most part can be
> made to run on android with minor adjustments.
Yes I agree J2SE Applications can be changed to run on android. The question
was "to what extent" are apps interoperable. And I think the short
answer is that compiled apps are not but the source code is with some
modification.
And the rest of your comment I agree with and it talks to some of the reasons
API's and especially language API's have to be free from copyright restrictions.
But maybe not all relevant to the question of interoperability.
Thanks for your thoughts though
Michael[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
