Collection interfaces

[Phil Earnhardt]

On 28 Mar 2001 11:26:12 -0500, Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:

>> >>     Yea, use a Java applet instead. Guaranted not to fiddle with your
>> >> DLL's :-)
>> >
>> >Oh great, so we get to fiddle with JAR's instead of DLL's!  At least
>> >JAR is easier to pronounce.  :)
>> 
>> Can you explain your comment, Lex? How is downloading and running
>> applets from a jarfile have anything to do with fiddling with DLLs?
>
>Java programs tend to require you to have various extensions installed
>as JAR files, just the same way that Windows EXE's tend to require
>that you have various extensions installed as DLL's.

Not really. A single Jar can be used to deploy your entire
application.

>  I'd hazard that
>JAR's are *worse* than DLL's -- DLL's at least *pretend* to do
>something about versions.

What you're talking about does not apply in the case where a single
application is deployed as a single Jar. In that case, you don't
really need version numbers -- you just overwrite the old jarfile with
the new one.

What you're talking about is the case where an API shared between
multiple applications is implemented in a Jar. In that case, you're
correct. As a practical matter, there is often less need for such APIs
in Java because the core class libraries provide rich functionality.

>Admittedly, I missed the "applet" part.  Applets run with a standard
>set of classes available, so they don't have that problem.  (Instead,
>they have the problem that *no* extensions are available.

What exactly does that mean?

>-Lex

--phil