Re: comments on proposed java policy

Jan Evert van Grootheest wrote: 2. why must java-compiler depend on java-runtime I propose to make this a suggestion. For example, gcj isn't a java class. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement - presumably that gcj isn't a Java run-time. While the gcj *command* isn't a Java runtme, gcj

comments on proposed java policy

Hi, I'm just subscribed to this list, but just caught the announcement and went through it. Some comments and questions: 1. why is there a difference between java1 and java2? Isn't java1 virtually obsolete? (I work on a java project where the life-cycle is short and customers upgrade rather qui

Re: comments on proposed java policy

Jan Evert van Grootheest wrote: > 2. why must java-compiler depend on java-runtime I propose to make > this a suggestion. For example, gcj isn't a java class. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement - presumably that gcj isn't a Java run-time. While the gcj *command* isn't a Java runtm

comments on proposed java policy

Hi, I'm just subscribed to this list, but just caught the announcement and went through it. Some comments and questions: 1. why is there a difference between java1 and java2? Isn't java1 virtually obsolete? (I work on a java project where the life-cycle is short and customers upgrade rather q

Unidentified subject!

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Aug 29 03:58:05 2002 X-Envelope-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18759 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 08:58:04 - Received: from smtp11.dti.ne.jp (202.216.228.46) by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 08:58:04 - Received: from pc3 (PPPa3884.to

Unidentified subject!

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Aug 29 03:58:05 2002 X-Envelope-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18759 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 08:58:04 - Received: from smtp11.dti.ne.jp (202.216.228.46) by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 08:58:04 - Received: from pc3 (PPPa3884.t