Ok, this may be heretic to some...Given a choice, I'd much rather prefer progress over backward compatibility.
Sean On 9/4/07, Jim Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Dan Creswell wrote: > > Gregg Wonderly wrote: > >> Bob Scheifler wrote: > >>> Gregg Wonderly wrote: > >>> > >>>> Perhaps in view that jar layouts may change further, there might be > >>>> an official directory of deprecated jars so that documentation and > >>>> discussions can focus on the nature of those jars? > >>> > >>> Moving the existing deprecated jars (jini-core.jar, jini-ext.jar, > >>> sdm-dl.jar, sun-util.jar) could break existing scripts/etc that > >>> reference them, so if the desire is for AR1 to maintain maximum > >>> compatibility, it would seem preferable to leave them where they > >>> are. > >> > >> Your call, but my thoughts are that there will already be some > >> changes > >> involved in testing and integrating AR1, for many. So, having to > >> change > >> some referred to directory structures, etc, may not be a big impact > >> overall. > > > > What do the rest of the user-base think about this? ^^^ > > > > How much backward compatibility does everybody expect in this first > > release? > > > > Anybody out there? > > Hey Dan- > > My guess is that we haven't made enough substantive progress in this > (River) project yet to attract Jini users to these mailing lists. We > certainly > have some (who seem to be generally lurking), but it will not be > (IMHO) until > we get out a release or two before 'users' will start to be very > vocal on this > list. > > It might be better to ask this at jini/javaspaces-users right now. > > My 2c. > > -Jim >
