I would suggest the team moves towards the next 2.x release without any package name changes. The next major release (3.0) should include the change of all com.sun.jini to org.apache.river.
Dennis On Oct 12, 2010, at 227PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > From a name and branding perspective, removing the use of com.sun, could help > people focus on "River" as opposed to "Sun's Jini Implementation". I have > several references to com.sun.jini.start. But, I also have my own fork of > 2.1 that I'm still using in active deployments. River should be "River". > > Gregg Wonderly > > On 10/12/2010 12:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> What Benson is talking about is not com.sun packages in the JDK, but >> that Jini implementation classes resides in com.sun packages (compared >> to spec classes residing in net.jini space) >> >> They should go as part of a suitable level bump in versioning. The >> impact on users is reasonably small... >> >> Niclas >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> if you care to be able to run on a different JVM, than it needs to be fixed. >>> >>> Generally it's bad to rely on some "private" packages/APIs >>> >>> -M >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> River imported packages of code from the original Sun grant under the >>>> name 'com.sun.whatever'. >>>> >>>> How important is it to change that? >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> >> >
