|
|
|
| Authored by: wharris on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:39 AM EDT |
I think the primary complaint is that "SDK" is not well defined and
quite likely includes more than just APIs and their implementations. One would
normally expect an SDK to include an implementation of the associated API(s) but
even that is not always true. For example, large parts of the Windows API are
implemented by the Windows OS, and not by any libraries in the Windows SDK.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
I did not say they they were right in any of their arguments as to their support
of Oracle's position in this appeal. I was trying to say that there is nothing
in the code that Google created to implement the java API's that could even be
considered to be an SDK. An Android app developer must use Sun/Oracle's SDK to
write their app, and then once it is a complete java app, they then run it
through a conversion process to convert it into a Dalvick app. So PJ's
characterization of the implementation code as being an "SDK" was not
correct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
