Note removal of crossposts. I am not sure whether this is
an appropriate list either, so my apologies.
> worried about Sun defining ISO Java specifications that include
> sucks hacks and com.sun.java.swing. What we really need is a more
> open "open process" from Sun.
What we would need is an
Agree, we should all respond to this. In addition to forcing developers
to put classes in com.sun.java that shouldn't exist there, this will
prevent use of the "cross platform look and feel" that Sun promised Java
developers early on in the evolution of Swing. IOW we will only be able
to use a W
I really hate to respond to this with a cross post to all these lists
but I feel I have to because of all the crap that sun has been putting
Java developers through lately. Both sides of this argument have made
good points on the feedback page for this poll. The point I feel has
been lost in the
Dear All,
I agree with this but for another reason. In an ideal world we shouldn't
have to write code in the 'com.sun.*" package but I don't think it is a
huge problem. If we have to then we have to, I wouldn't imaging that it
would raise any major legal problems. Sun probably doesn't really
a
Hi everybody
I'm just pointing out to everybody that JavaWorld (www.javaworld.com) are
doing a poll, on whether it is right for Sun to put Swing under the package
name com.sun.java.swing.
This is very important for us in the open source community to try and
change Sun's minds. As we may in the
