Jukka Zitting wrote: >>It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for >>*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is >>a backend decision process, not a frontend development process. >>Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP >>were in fact developed within the same project that did the >>initial (and in many cases, still the only) implementation. > > I believe that this is actually a major structural cause for not > having other implementations of the standard.
I can't tell if your "this" refers to the first two sentences or the last sentence or their conjunction. But I'm not sure it matters at this point whether we agree on how to interpret success or failure in the past. > Thus, and as pointed out > by other people as well, if the goal of the Jini community really is > to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be > managed by a separate body. I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations. Going forward, for the APIs that are coupled with the implementations that are part of the ASF project, I see the goal as just allowing, not having. And in case it hasn't been clear, to my mind the ASF project is only dealing with those APIs for which it is also producing an implementation. It is not trying to be the governing body for all Jini-related APIs. As a concrete example, we have an existing pair of Jini community standards (the Surrogate Architecture and the IP Interconnect for it) and an implementation (called Madison) that aren't being proposed for inclusion in the ASF project; they now exist in a project on java.net. - Bob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
