Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>For my money, changing the JDK requirement for James needs a vote. > > > If that hasn't ever actually been the policy, it should be the policy. > > >>Assertion Facility, NIO or java.util.regex.* etc. > > > Well, since we already have regex from the oro classes, I wouldn't press to > use java.util.regex just yet. But I might have liked to use > NetworkInterface to discover the local IP addresses. > > So far, though, I'm not see a *compelling* reason to force a JDK 1.4 > requirement. What would be your standard for casting a vote? Compelling > reason, or just a benefit?
A single compelling reason or a set of benefits that collectively are compelling. Of course, the point of a vote is to ensure the issues are discussed, e.g. what is compelling? Charles -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
