The JSR usage of standard to me always seemed to fit with Sun's marketing
plan. Create a JSR that standardises an interface/spec, then have multiple
vendors implement it.
Thus I was going to claim that Ant would not be JSR-able as it is a
monopolised implementation in its own right and it wouldn't make sense to
warp the whole thing so it can fit the JSR view of multiple vendors, then
I saw this:
JSR-000241 The Groovy Programming Language
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=241
So, depending on whether this succeeds, maybe the JCP is for more than
just Sun's vendor marketing scheme.
Hen
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Hendrik Schreiber wrote:
> Rich is 100% right: Of course struts is a standard - a de facto standard.
>
> Even though there are 30+ other webframeworks out there, struts seems to be the one
> that is most widely used. And that is what makes it a de facto standard.
>
> The other way of creating a standard is having an organization arguing about
> something for a couple of years and then write a paper, which they call a standard.
> Whether the standard is adopted by the industry or not is a different story.
>
> Bottom line: Whether something is a 'standard' or not, does not matter at all. It's
> adoption that counts.
>
> -hendrik
>
> > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Auftrag von Richard O. Hammer
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Marz 2004 09:43
> > An: Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list.
> > Betreff: Re: [Juglist] standards, JCP, Apache
> >
> >
> > Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> > > Thomas L Roche wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> What I'm wondering is, are there folks who would consider the latter
> > >> statement _not_ b******t? If so, why? Because ISTM that the many of
> > >> the Jakarta (and other Apache) tools are pretty damn standard--e.g.
> > >> Ant, Tomcat, and, for that matter, Struts. Am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > > I'm not sure it really matters though. There seems to be room
> > > for both Struts and JSF, and both will probably be around for
> > > the forseeable future.
> >
> > So we may have standards of two types, those which grow spontaneously
> > and are later discovered or proclaimed to be standards, and those
> > which are intentionally created as standards from the inception.
> >
> > Rich Hammer
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Juglist mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
