[LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Adding host Java support to the buildbots

Dana Myers k6jq at comcast.net
Tue Jan 3 11:54:24 PST 2017

On 1/2/2017 12:22 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 06:52:32 -0800
> Dana Myers <k6jq at comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2016 11:50 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:

> Another alternative to hotspot on mips would be cacao, again with
> openjdk classpath. Though jamvm certainly is a vaild pick.

Without revisiting my selection process from 3 years ago, I did look at the
various alternatives and picked JamVM, and it has proven more than adequate
for my needs. Same thing is true for GNU Classpath.

I needed support for what was historically called the "Connected Device Configuration,
Foundation Profile" and the combination of JamVM and Classpath met/meets my needs.
Keep in mind that the class of device running OpenWRT is likely to be very limited in
terms of memory, and headless as well.

In modern Java terms, I suppose this class of embedded Java use is most
consistent with the "General Connection Framework".

> What encumbrance concerns do you have in mind? Debian also ships the
> binaries as in openjdk-7-jdk.

Frankly, it was uncertainty on my part regarding embedded use under the
OpenJDK license. It may not be an issue at all; I was more comfortable with
GNU Classpath, it suited my needs, and had the longest history of use with
JamVM (increasing my confidence in stability). I didn't dig into the OpenJDK
licensing details with respect to embedded use.

> I don't object to jamvm with gnu classpath, just that I was wondering
> why you'd pick it over the alternatives. Basically it's adding java
> support that is hardly usable this days apart of a few specialized
> cases.

That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration there :-) There's no reason that
support for OpenJDK library and/or additional JVMs can't be integrated into
OpenWRT, though.


More information about the Lede-dev mailing list