Hi, On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But I'm not sure it matters at this point whether we agree on how to interpret success or failure in the past.
Agreed. I'm sorry for bringing the issue out in that light.
I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see the project being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini implementation? BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
