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 > implementations. Thus, there are two options: > > 1) It is decided (by what community?) that there is no need for > independent implementations, in which case bringing in the project > with both the implementation and the specifications under the name of > "Apache Jini" would make sense. > > 2) Independent implementations remains a goal for the Jini standard, > and a suitably independent body (be it an Apache project, a real > standardization organization, or whatever) is chartered for the > maintenance and development of the standard. In this case we bring in > the JTSK (+ related tools) implementation as an "Apache Something" > project that focuses on the implementation of the externally defined > standard. > > I'm personally in favor of option 2, but at this point I think it's > premature to decide what to do with the Jini standard. Thanks for summarizing well what I have been advocating. 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. I believe therefore that we have now returned to the original question... what should the name of the new podling be called? :) geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
