Renaldo Bodega wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry to say Gregg (and others), I am getting really frustrated with >> the "There is nothing wrong!" attitude from 'old timers', when clearly >> the most clever technology have been unable to conquer every Java >> developer's mind and toolkit, and having had 8-10 years to do so. >> I am NOT your regular newbie; I adopted Jini 1.0/1.1 in a critical >> application in 2001, > > 'old timers', huh? Do any of the other 'old timers' on this list > think it's a bit ironic that one of the members of the expert > group that voted down JSRs 76 & 78 is now frustrated, and > complaining about people preventing progress with Jini/River? > > No matter what role that member played in the demise of those > JSRs, it still seems hard to escape the irony contained in the fact > that the Apache Foundation itself voted 'no' on both JSRs. Note > that one of the more respected names in Java lore (Doug Lea) > voted yes on both JSRs, so I'm guessing that what was being > proposed was not without merit. Kinda makes you wonder whether > those proposals would have passed if IBM or BEA or the Apache > Foundation had made them, doesn't it? > > By the way, for those who are not familiar with the history, > JSRs 76 & 78 proposed that extensions to the Java security > model be made that would address certain limitations that model > had with respect to supporting distributed systems written in > Java (JSR 76); and that a new RMI implementation be included in > the JDK that supports those secuity extensions (JSR 78). Although
And that same RMI addition also supported dynamic proxies and many other things (including a much better separated and customisable comms stack) that arrived much later in JDK RMI - well after Jini had them (and proposed them in these same JSRs). > neither JSR made it into the JDK, the results of what would have > been there can be seen -- and used -- today as the Jini (now River) > security model, and the JERI implementation of RMI. > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=76 > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=325 > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=78 > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=328 > > Can't say how diffrerent the world of Jini/River would be today if > those JSRs had become part of the Java platform, but it''s certain > that the number of classes included in the Jini/River jars would be > greatly reduced; which would mean, I imagine, that folks would > have less to criticize and complain about. > > -- rb >
