Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Is this about competing podlings? or existing projects/new podlings?
The Competing Projects thread is a general umbrella of how the incubator
should approach any two proposed podlings that overlap in scope, or a
proposed podling that overlaps in scope with an existing
Is this about competing podlings? or existing projects/new podlings?
-- dims
On 12/26/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think it's a concern because the precedent puts the podling on the
. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as
River. You may be familiar with this project as it has been
discussed under other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
actually lost track of the Quest
On Tuesday 26 December 2006 14:24, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
People can truly dislike others in the same
project, and yet collaborate towards a common goal.
If we take another heated example, Avalon, which was heavily criticized for
its unhealthy community; IMHO, it was the different
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think it's a concern because the precedent puts the podling on the
defensive and in the mind set of oh, if there's a competing project,
we won't accept you. The fact that there's a project already here
that
Jim,
I've updated the proposal in the wiki, hopefully addressing your two
concerns - noting that there are no other implementations of Jini
technology at the ASF, and noting that committership for the initial
committers will be granted upon engagement with the project, as
determined
On Dec 24, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Jim,
I've updated the proposal in the wiki, hopefully addressing your
two concerns - noting that there are no other implementations of
Jini technology at the ASF, and noting that committership for the
initial committers
On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/22/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A simple one-liner similar to Geir's No other ASF project
or podling in the architecture space is based on Jini
is enough I think...
This is getting off-topic, but really why do we
On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We have lots of competing proposals and projects all across the ASF.
And, many of them don't communicate for extremely petty and personal
reasons;
IMO, that is a shame... competition is good. Territorialism
(if that's even a word :) )
On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/22/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A simple one-liner similar to Geir's No other ASF project
or podling in the architecture space is based on Jini
is enough I think
On 12/23/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really fail to see how all that is such a big deal.
We're talking an additional 2 sentences
I think it's a concern because the precedent puts the podling on the
defensive and in the mind set of oh, if there's a competing project,
we
On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/23/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really fail to see how all that is such a big deal.
We're talking an additional 2 sentences
I think it's a concern because the precedent puts the podling on the
defensive and in
Jim,
Keep in mind that JINI significantly predates all of the current Web
Services efforts, not just here but anywhere. Technically, SOAP at
Microsoft *might* predate JINI, but JINI was out and about (in so far as it
has ever gained much marketshare) before Web Services as we know them.
In any
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We have lots of competing proposals and projects all across the ASF.
And, many of them don't communicate for extremely petty and personal
reasons; some don't communicate because they disagree on the technical
direction.
While they are within the Incubator, I'd prefer
On 12/23/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While they are within the Incubator, I'd prefer to see the extremely petty
reasons reduced.
And, I'd like a pony, too. =P -- justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/23/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While they are within the Incubator, I'd prefer to see the extremely petty
reasons reduced.
And, I'd like a pony, too. =P -- justin
Did you ask Santa? :)
--
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim,
Keep in mind that JINI significantly predates all of the current Web
Services efforts, not just here but anywhere. Technically, SOAP at
Microsoft *might* predate JINI, but JINI was out and about (in so far as it
has ever gained much marketshare) before Web
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ X] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
+1
:-)
-Jim
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On Dec 21, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Dan Creswell wrote:
From experience of evangelizing Jini I find each person's SOA
definition
to be different from another's and I have to argue/discuss on a
case by
case basis.
So I kind of agree it's a valid item for discussion but given the
above
On 12/22/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A simple one-liner similar to Geir's No other ASF project
or podling in the architecture space is based on Jini
is enough I think...
This is getting off-topic, but really why do we care?
We have lots of competing proposals and projects all
been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've actually lost
track of
the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very responsible for this
naming
mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
+1
Dan Rollo (cloutless vote)
--
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
confidential information.
It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is
+1
BR,
Jukka Zitting
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
+1
Craig
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
+1
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[x] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
Good name too.
I've always hoped that someone would wish
and Jini. I've
actually lost track of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very
responsible for this naming mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling
been
discussed under other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
actually lost track of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel
very responsible for this naming mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling
Good name too.
'Apache River' is very close to 'Apache Rivet', but they are in
different areas, so hopefully won't get mixed up much.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
, including Braintree and Jini. I've actually lost track
of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very responsible for this
naming mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept
+1
- richard
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as River.
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
Hi,
On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[x] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
+0 on the River proposal.
On 12/21/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always hoped that
as
River. You may be familiar with this project as it has been
discussed under other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
actually lost track of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel
very responsible for this naming mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as
River. You may be familiar with this project as it has been
discussed under other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
actually lost track of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel
very responsible for this naming mess, for which I
be familiar with this project as it has been
discussed under other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
actually lost track of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very
responsible for this naming mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ ] +1
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
it's a little different. Jini is an old and I would say
fundamental technology for service infrastructure in the java
platform, very different from today's SOA.
I'll let someone else argue my point, as I have to go christmas
+1 , glad we have come to this point.
--
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and Jini. I've actually lost track of
the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very responsible for this naming
mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[X] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
+1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
Brian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
+1 Accept River as a new podling
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/21/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
+1
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense, making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Orixo, the XML business
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as River.
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've actually lost
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[X] +1 Accept River as a new podling
- Bob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate [the project formerly known as Jini]
No kidding! And it's about time! :-)
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including
[X] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and Jini. I've actually lost track of
the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very responsible for this naming
mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[X] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as River.
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've actually lost track of
the Quest for a Name
+1 from me
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as River.
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've
been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've actually lost track of
the Quest for a Name, and actually feel very responsible for this naming
mess, for which I apologize.
Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
[ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling
On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[x] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
non-binding.
Cheers
Niclas
-
To unsubscribe,
+1
Phil
On 12/20/06, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[x] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
non-binding.
Cheers
Niclas
On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[x] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
[ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
Good name too.
Hen
-
To unsubscribe,
Don't know if this is acceptable to send to this list -- so my
apologies if I'm stepping in it here :-obut I know some people
on the list may not be that familiar with Jini and so I thought
I'd recommend a recent series of podcasts that the JavaPosse
is doing on Jini
Jim Hurley wrote:
Don't know if this is acceptable to send to this list -- so my
apologies if I'm stepping in it here :-obut I know some people
on the list may not be that familiar with Jini and so I thought
I'd recommend a recent series of podcasts that the JavaPosse
is doing on Jini
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:57:46PM +0300, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Is anyone opposed to the proposed Jini project being called Apache
Jini after the latest comments from the Jini community?
AIUI (haven't followed everything closely):
1) the people involved understand all the potential issues
Hi,
Is anyone opposed to the proposed Jini project being called Apache
Jini after the latest comments from the Jini community? They are
essentially saying that it would make most sense for the project to
maintain it's own specifications, and thus be the Jini
implementation even though
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:24, Mark Brouwer wrote:
I would be saddened if we can't maintain Jini as project name
I think Mark has put it rather well.
The Jini community want a water cooler to gather around.
Brilliant :-)
--
Mark
While we continue to look forward to your review and
response ;-) thought I'd mention a Jini event coming up
next month:
*
Tenth Jini Community Meeting
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 03:18, Jim Hurley wrote:
We, therefore, are open to discussing a name change to something
else within the Jini Community.
If there's agreement on the positions stated in 1 and 2 above,
we'll assume there's general support for our Proposal
the
implementation of existing standards. I'd be happy with that, and even
with keeping the Jini name based on the expressed views of the Jini
community. The Apache Jini project would be more like the Cocoon or
Lucene (just to name a few) projects that define their own interfaces
than projects like Tomcat
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:24, Mark Brouwer wrote:
I would be saddened if we can't maintain Jini as project name
I think Mark has put it rather well.
The Jini community want a water cooler to gather around. We would be happy if
that is the Apache Jini project, and we are happy
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 03:18, Jim Hurley wrote:
We, therefore, are open to discussing a name change to something
else within the Jini Community.
If there's agreement on the positions stated in 1 and 2 above,
we'll assume there's general support for our Proposal to Apache
and begin
Hi,
On 8/20/06, Mark Brouwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I guess that means I can't support Geir's proposal as it is not in
line what I and the larger part of the Jini Community want.
So you believe that we should go back to the original proposal with
the added implication that there is only
) lenses in which to view
the specifications question. I'd rather not reintroduce all of the
different perspectives and proposals, but rather focus on one
that we believe is acceptable to the Jini Community, and hopefully
will be to Apache.
We would like to include the API docs (specifications seems
Mark Brouwer wrote:
I would be saddened if we can't maintain Jini as project name, but if
it has to become something like Genie would it still be possible to do
the following:
- Create various specification deliverables that are of the form Jini
bla bla bla Specification/API
the Jini community see the project
being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
implementation?
Hi Jukka-
I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with it depends what the
definition of is is but I'd answer that I believe the Jini Community
views the project as *the* Jini
Bob Scheifler wrote:
There are definitely people in the community that want to see the
existing Jini community process maintained for approving standards.
I used to be one of them. But, when we've looked for volunteers
committed to running that process, there are very few takers.
I was one
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that we should consider the Jini standard separately - we have a
community and a codebase, and should proceed with that now. Because it
still is a standard we can work on that in parallel if all parties are
willing.
+1
I
are. Hope that will help.
thanks -Jim
On Aug 18, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that we should consider the Jini standard separately - we
have a
community and a codebase, and should proceed with that now.
Because
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Either way, separate lists and source control areas.
Many of our specs are done JDK-style: as javadoc embedded
directly in our implementation. We use javadoc tags to identify
implementation-specific information, such that we can generate
both spec and doc from a single
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
However, the current structure appears to be org.jini.* for APIs and
com.sun.something.* for implementation. Clearly that structure says
there can be multiple implementations - and in that case I'm against
putting the two parts together.
Can you expand on why you're
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with it depends what the
definition of is is but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
Community
views the project as *the* Jini implementation
existing users, though, so we're going
to raise this over on the broader Jini community mailing lists
to see what the general reaction to it is.
- Bob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
On Aug 15, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
:
For example, what if we created [EMAIL PROTECTED] and jinn-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Forget
the question of how many podlings --- I am simply talking about a
list
related to specification work, and a list related to implementation.
Is that a
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
technology domain ownership for implementations. I'd never support
Apache EMail or Apache Web.
It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
are different/OK: DB, Directory,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
technology domain ownership for implementations. I'd never support
Apache EMail or Apache Web.
It would help me if you could explain how these
are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
jini is a trademark
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=docstate=v6g57o.2.9
directory isn't
and although, there is an individual that has trademarked XML, I doubt
that it is actually legally a thread to the acronym XML
Filip
- Bob
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
it?
I'll try again. It seems we're discussing three different things:
1. development of code
2. development of specs
3. running a standards process
My concern is about #3, and not trying to do it
Garrett Rooney wrote:
It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
Just because we did things in the past does not mean it was a good idea.
That's fine, but it doesn't help me understand the statement
about
Filip at Apache wrote:
jini is a trademark
directory isn't
The question wasn't about Jini vs others. Geir said he wouldn't support
Apache EMail or Apache Web, and I'd like to understand how those two
are different from Apache Directory, Apache Web Services, etc.
- Bob
: there aren't people willing to do it.
I'm guessing that others in this discussion have been focused on #2,
and/or are tying #2 and #3 tightly together. Perhaps differences in
what we each mean by specification is causing mutual confusion?
I think the difference in how the Jini specs are seen is the key
Bob Scheifler wrote:
Filip at Apache wrote:
jini is a trademark
directory isn't
The question wasn't about Jini vs others. Geir said he wouldn't support
Apache EMail or Apache Web, and I'd like to understand how those two
are different from Apache Directory, Apache Web Services, etc.
I
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards process.
Wouldn't it be the same people in the code podling working in two
podlings?
If one of the podlings is for running a standards
Jukka Zitting wrote:
I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down. It's correct
to insist in that the standard shouldn't be developed within the
implementation project if the goal is to allow independent
Jukka Zitting wrote:
I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down.
I hope I'm not nitpicking, but there isn't a singular Jini standard;
there are multiple specifications that have been approved as standards
under
, if the goal of the Jini community really is
to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be
managed by a separate body.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
or their conjunction. But I'm not sure it
matters at this point whether we agree on how to interpret success
or failure in the past.
Thus, and as pointed out
by other people as well, if the goal of the Jini community really is
to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be
managed
people as well, if the goal of the Jini community really is
to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be
managed by a separate body.
I don't think it's correct to assume that JDP/existing processes are a
structural cause for not having other implementations.
We have multiple
implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and
standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see the project
being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
implementation?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple
implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and
standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see
Jim Hurley wrote:
But *the* as in: the main, the original, the most prominent, (what will
be) the Community's implementation, and the one you'd recommend a
developer go grab to get going with Jini. But not *the* as in the only.
I view it as being/becoming *the* Jini Community's touchstone
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
if we start with the mailing lists separate and the source control
split, which seems natural from what everyone is saying, I expect
that the governmance issue will sort itself out in due course.
Like a subproject?
Uh, no. Our governance model does not recognize
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with it depends what the
definition of is is but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
Community
views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
But *the* as in: the main, the original
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
process for JINI.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
the working code that has been
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
I'm not sure what governance you have in mind beyond the spec process,
but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
an equivalent of the existing Jini
of the existing Jini community standards process going
forward. I think our best shot at success is a single podling, which
maintains both specs and code under a single development process.
+1
If it becomes more evident that a cleaner spec/impl divide is needed,
then that can be handled
Hi Bob,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Bob Scheifler wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
process for JINI.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one
for JINI
governance, and one for building
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
technology domain ownership for implementations. I'd never support
Apache EMail or Apache Web. That's why if we are going to have
Apache Jini, it shouldn't
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
technology domain ownership for implementations. I'd never support
Apache EMail or Apache Web. That's why if we are going to have
Apache Jini, it shouldn't
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 21:42 +0300, Jukka Zitting wrote:
However, I'm still confused at the need to bring in a separate spec
project. The Jini proposal states the scope of the project to be the
implementation of the specification, and that scope is still valid
regardless of what happens
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
