Hi,
On 8/20/06, Mark Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I guess that means I can't support Geir's proposal as it is not in
line what I and the larger part of the Jini Community want.
So you believe that we should go back to the original proposal with
the added implication that there is only one "Jini" around? I don't
have a problem with that, as long as the nature of the incubated
project is clear and in line with the wishes of the Jini community.
I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name, but if
it has to become something like "Genie" would it still be possible to do
the following:
- Create various specification deliverables that are of the form "Jini
bla bla bla Specification/API".
- Specifications/API in the net.jini namespace.
And remember that there is no body outside the ASF project that defines
those specifications, that is the job of the ASF project.
That would mean changing the scope of the Jini proposal. Again, I'm OK
with that as long as it's clear that the intention is to specify the
interface contracts of this implementation rather than the
interoperability standards of an open platform.
Note that the issue is not so much technical as a social or
perceptional one. As Geir argued, if Jini is meant to be a "technology
domain", i.e. an interoperable space with open standards and
independent implementations, then an implementation project should not
be named "Apache Jini". Is it the consensus of the Jini community that
Jini is *not* a technology domain as defined above?
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]
