> I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".
Thanks.
> "commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based".
> And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based
> without java.security - it just makes some things easier.
Your point is?....
> Let's see: C does not include the functionality of java.security,
> so it must be a toy-programming language. C++ is the same way.
> All languages except Java-with-java.security are toy languages?
> Nonsense. You have a very parochial view of "commercial-level"
> programming.
My toaster doesn't have java.security neither, and it's not a toy.
You try to make your argument logical by making illogical comparison?
I apology for my poor english, but I'd appreciate you to make your point in
your argument instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
