On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Sim IJskes wrote:
>
>> The implementation that resides in com.sun could be renamed into the
>> org.apache.river.impl namespace without causing to much conversion
>> activity with the users of river. I believe there are strong feelings
>> ab
On 12/13/2010 07:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The implementation that resides in com.sun could be renamed into the
org.apache.river.impl namespace without causing to much conversion
activity with the users of river. I believe there are strong feelings
about keeping to the original specifications
Sim IJskes wrote:
> The implementation that resides in com.sun could be renamed into the
> org.apache.river.impl namespace without causing to much conversion
> activity with the users of river. I believe there are strong feelings
> about keeping to the original specifications.
So are you saying t
On 12/12/2010 05:59 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
The original intent of the Jini specification was that only the
net.jini.* namespace was supposed to be used by application built on
top, but very early this was breached both by recommendation and by
lack of enforcement. So, at the moment, there are
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> b) This upcoming release still has com.sun packages in it.
>
> Is there any concern regarding permitted use of the com.sun package?
>
> Other than that, which may be ado about nothing, I'm fine with the proposal.
The com.sun namespace c
> b) This upcoming release still has com.sun packages in it.
Is there any concern regarding permitted use of the com.sun package?
Other than that, which may be ado about nothing, I'm fine with the proposal.
--- Noel
Incubator PMC,
The River podling has come a long way over the last 1.5 year or so,
from one foot in the grave after Sun's resources were withdrawn
completely, individuals moved on to other things and an apathy among
the independents who felt hopelessness, to a very active and vibrant
community. Pe
