River's charter is to be a reference implementation for net.jini? Is
that widely accepted? Do i understand you right? If so, no wonder is
my thought.
Mike
On Dec 22, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 11:48, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
John Sarman wrote:
The refactoring from net.jini to org.apache.river would definitely
cause
Not to nitpick, but that's not a "refactoring", it's a change,
plain and
simple. The term has a very well-defined meaning.
alot of existing code to be forced to be changed. That being
said, I
personally would not mind refactoring although this does not solve
any
problems, just creates more!
Yes. It was agreed long ago that com.sun should (must?) go (see
JIRA) but
net.jini should stay.
-h
+1. Jini is a set of specifications. River is an implementation of
those specs, in the same way that Tomcat is an implementation of the
Servlet specification. The com.sun classes can turn into
org.apache.river, but net.jini should stay.
Greg.
Mike
