Jim Hurley wrote:
Just to be clear, the Sun release was not a product, but rather
an open source (Apache 2 license) release. I could be wrong, but
I don't think it was handled as a commercial product.
You are correct.
- Bob
-
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]
Craig L Russell wrote:
> But I'd suggest that the com.sun.jini package should change to
> org.apache.newNameForJiniImplementation when it comes over.
I can certainly understand the desire from ASF's perspective
for this to occur. Such a renaming will have an impact on
pretty much all of our exi
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
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 sin
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 Communi
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 the project
> being propo
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
>>*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
>>a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
>>Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP
>>were in fact develop
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 th
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 stand
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
---
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
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
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,
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I could go add that to the website if that would help. We're not a
> legalistic community where exploiting loopholes or lack of written law
> is encouraged...
Sorry, it was meant as a simple question. It's extremely hard for
a newcomer like me to distinguish between pe
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>
> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards proc
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".
Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership of"
rather than merely "categor
Craig L Russell wrote:
> This is an interesting turn. The Jini web site doesn't currently say
> anything like this. It talks about "the specification" and "the
> implementation" as separable pieces.
They are "separable", and I'm not suggesting that change. At the same
time, they have not been
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
Jim Hurley wrote:
> Besides the 'name question' -- are there any other questions or issues
> associated with the JiniProposal that we could be discussing?
Since resolution on the name question (so far) seems clear as mud :(
let's try a related question of Java package names. The existing
codebase
> The community is developing the software, no?
The software that's being proposed as the initial source for
the ASF project has not been under open source development to date.
Almost all of it is code that has been developed and controlled
by one group at Sun. There's been active and ongoing com
> I should also point you to the follow up :)
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115092546912444&w=2
FWIW, that just emphasizes to me that the circumstances are different.
- Bob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAI
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Bit more info here:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115091704611860&w=2
Thanks, but I'm not sure I understand what "confusion" is worried about.
The expected new jini.org is an information/community site, not a
software development site. We also now
Leo Simons wrote:
> I guess this means keeping jini.org around for a long time to come, and I
> think
> this means you need a name for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" which is not "jini" :)
Could you expand on why you think that? Thanks.
- Bob
--
24 matches
Mail list logo
