Seth R Arnold Writes: > Chris, could you go into more detail why? I think the effort will be great, > and the returns might be small. (I am not sure it is worth it...) > > But, I think you are reading the idea of 'fork' incorrectly. It could be > that I am also incorrectly interpreting it... The way I saw Ean's proposal, > we would work on a free implementation based off of an earlier version of > JDK that allows forks -- and we would implement java exactly as the spec > suggests, keeping up with the changes to the sun jdk, and improving it where > we can -- *NOT* the language, but the JDK.
After re-reading his message, he did not state what the "fork" would be. So, he would have to provide clarification himself. But I thought, his idea was, "because Java 2 is under SCSL ... lets try to come up with a very 'Java 2-like' specification and then implement a JVM, class libraries, etc. around it". I admit that his message did *NOT* state that, but it is what I thought he meant. ---- Cris J H -- Cris J. Holdorph [EMAIL PROTECTED]
