> We should ask ourselves if we expect to provide a home for extended
> Perl, C or whatever APIs, naming services for those languages, etc. If
> the answer is "yes", then fine, we can all agree and move forward.
> my opinion is that standards-based Directory + Identity services
> could make up a natural "semantic domain" (actually more natural than
> "XML") and we should focus on defining this domain, rather than what
> languages or language-specific extensions will be supported (much as
> that diminishes the importance of JNDI and the extended Java APIs that I
> am personally looking forward to ;-)). Then we need to make the explicit
> commitment that the core solutions implemented and the eventual TLP will
> support *all* languages and *all* computing platforms. Can we all agree
> to this?
Yes, with the clarification added by Roy that the project only has to be
welcoming and supportive of people who want to work on such things.
But I don't believe that you need to feel that it diminishes "the importance
of JNDI and the extended Java APIs that I am personally looking forward to
;-))" because *you* (and others) represent such a community to be welcomed
and supported within the domain.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
