On 3/29/02 11:05 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote: >>>>> Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you >>>>> might was well >>>>> support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and >>>>> extend'. Just >>>>> do the JSR47 stuff better :) >>>> >>>> Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not completely clear >>>> about all this..) >>> >>> Not really and nor could you "embrace and extend". Soon we will be >>> allowed access to the TCKs (fingers crossed) which means we can implment >>> the spec legally. However there has not been any change to any of the >>> licenses regarding the specification materials which means it is still a >>> violation of the license if you were to try and "corrupt" a spec or >>> "embrace and extend" a spec by poorly-implementing it (and failing the >>> TCK). However now we can at least implement the spec(s). >> >> I can't believe that's true. >> >> I can't see how they can prevent you from extending. I mean, every J2EE >> implementation 'embraces and extends' the J2EE spec because the specs leave >> out a lot. For example, you can't make a really useful JMS broker until >> you add proprietary extensions for clustering, load balancing, etc... >> Anyone that includes any functioning taglibs with a servlet container / jsp >> implementation is extending the spec as there are no useful tags in the >> spec. >> >> I can't see how anyone can complain if you pass the TCK. > > Passing the TCK - thats the trick. Given that most (all?) TCKs require that > the public interface conform exactly to that which is specified and that > JSR47 is not made up of interfaces but instead made up of classes it would be > difficult to pass the TCK if you added anything to it. Of course you would want to implement the API exactly.... > You could create new > output targets/appenders/whatever but they could not be in the java.** > namespace. True. But you would still be able to offer a better implementation, and offer extensions if you desired. > JSR47 should not be considered in the same category as the servlet/JMS/ejb > specs - more in the same category as the Collection API. That's true but irrelevant - if the JSR47 leaves out features that people deem necessary, there is no reason why those can't be added as a 'vendor extension', unless the JSR is so broken you can't extend it w/o violating the API. (Like hardcoding the possible output targets choices as methods into the API...) -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting The cost of synchronization is much less that the cost of stupidity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
