> > So they didn't read the message, which specifically requests follow-ups to
> > n.p.m.general, then? :-) I heard nothing of this.
>
> More or less. It was a response to a message I sent that was basically
> a follow-up to yours (although I forgot to mention that it should be
> sent to .general) to ask if anyone could think of reasons for it.
We did have a discussion on this issue in this group, and the reasons for
the decision can be found there :-)
> > > However, if .java is dead and gone, I'll respect the decision.
> >
> > The question is: will there really be enough non-OJI java discussions, and
> > will the number of people who are interested in them be sufficiently
> > different from those in oji, to warrant a new group? (There's also the
> > thing that any group called .java attracts off-topic questions.)
>
> Well, one could make the same argument that there won't be enough OJI
> questions, since the interfaces are more or less frozen for that now.
> :) Actually, if there were some way to convey other non-OJI problems as
> on-topic in an .oji group (Perhaps a name of .oji-jre or something
> sufficiently obscure to keep out general Java off-topic questions but
> make on-topic stuff appropriate?), that might be ideal.
.avaj ? ;-)
Gerv
