Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As a Java programmer I seriously suspect any one could build a > commercial-level(in-house, transaction-based, etc.) java application > without java.security.
I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect". "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. > My question is, Kaffe is funded by Microsoft(see my links in previous > mail). "is funded" is a misleading statement. Given my previous response, one might wonder: are you being deliberately misleading? > Who is determining such a low priority in implementing a feature so > important? - The funder Microsoft? Or the developers deliberately > cripple Java to a toy-programming language? 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. > I wouldn't believe the developers would like to see Kaffe become a toy. > > My apology for being surjective but it's very suspicious. "surjective"? One could turn the question around: why are you making these poorly-justified accusations and innunendos? (Note I am not particularly interested in the success of Kaffe, given my association with Gcj, which can be viewed as a Kaffe competitor.) -- --Per Bothner [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/~per/