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 i
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 there i
Hi,
On 8/22/06, Jim Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We would like to include the API docs ("specifications" seems to
be a loaded term, with many different definitions and assumptions
tied up in it) in the project.
OK. So the scope of a revised proposal would be broader than just the
implemen
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 to Apa
>
<http://www.jini.org/wiki/10th_JCM_Agenda_Day_2>
It would be great to have Apache members there. The meeting is
open and free, and all interested developers are welcome.
We are hoping to provide an update on our "Jini" Proposal at
the meeting (the "Update on the
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
We've had some good and spirited discussion on the JiniProposal
over the last couple weeks. Thanks to everyone who chimed in with
your thoughts and opinions.
In reviewing the discussion again, I think we can focus on three key
items which seem to be at the root of some debate. For each item, I'll
