Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:24, Mark Brouwer wrote:
I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name
I think Mark has put it rather well.
The Jini community want a water cooler to gather around.
Brilliant :-)
--
Mark
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:24, Mark Brouwer wrote:
> I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name
I think Mark has put it rather well.
The Jini community want a water cooler to gather around. We would be happy if
that is the Apache Jini project, and we are happy that such pro
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
Mark Brouwer wrote:
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".
- Spec
Bob Scheifler wrote:
There are definitely people in the community that want to see the
existing Jini community process maintained for approving standards.
I used to be one of them. But, when we've looked for volunteers
committed to running that process, there are very few takers.
I was one of
Jim Hurley wrote:
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
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 J
I think we've had good discussion and have furthered the thinking
in some areas that were contentious in the Proposal. We're probably
aligned in some places and still have differences of opinion in others.
I'll try and summarize in an email over the weekend to help (at least
me!) sync where we ar
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that we should consider the Jini standard separately - we have a
community and a codebase, and should proceed with that now. Because it
still is a standard we can work on that in parallel if all parties are
willing.
+1
I b
On Aug 15, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
:
For example, what if we created [EMAIL PROTECTED] and jinn-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Forget
the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a
list
related to specification work, and a list related to implementation.
Is that a
Craig L Russell wrote:
> But I'd suggest that the com.sun.jini package should change to
> org.apache.newNameForJiniImplementation when it comes over.
I can certainly understand the desire from ASF's perspective
for this to occur. Such a renaming will have an impact on
pretty much all of our exi
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with "it depends what the
definition of "is" is" but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
Community
views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
But *the* as i
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> However, the current structure appears to be org.jini.* for APIs and
> com.sun.something.* for implementation. Clearly that structure says
> there can be multiple implementations - and in that case I'm against
> putting the two parts together.
Can you expand on why you
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Either way, separate lists and source control areas.
Many of our specs are done "JDK-style": as javadoc embedded
directly in our implementation. We use javadoc tags to identify
implementation-specific information, such that we can generate
both "spec" and "doc" from a sin
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent",
(what will be)
"the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
developer
go grab to get going wit
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
> I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with "it depends what the
> definition of "is" is" but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
> Community
> views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
>
> But *the* as in: "the main", "the o
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > if we start with the mailing lists separate and the source control
> > split, which seems natural from what everyone is saying, I expect
> > that the governmance issue will sort itself out in due course.
> Like a subproject?
Uh, no. Our governance model does not rec
Jim Hurley wrote:
> But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent", (what will
> be) "the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
> developer go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
>
> I view it as being/becoming *the* Jini Communi
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>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 propo
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
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 t
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
impl
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
Most of the specifications that ha
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
>>*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
>>a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
>>Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP
>>were in fact develop
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
Most of the specifications that have been approved under
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
> the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down.
I hope I'm not nitpicking, but there isn't a singular Jini standard;
there are multiple specifications that have been approved as standards
under th
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
> the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down. It's correct
> to insist in that the standard shouldn't be developed within the
> implementation project if the goal is to allow independent
>
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
>>from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards process.
>
> Wouldn't it be the same people in the code podling working in two
> podlings?
If one of the podlings is for running a stand
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Filip at Apache wrote:
>> jini is a trademark
>> directory isn't
>
> The question wasn't about Jini vs others. Geir said he wouldn't support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web", and I'd like to understand how those two
> are different from "Apache Directory", "Apache Web Servi
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll try again. It seems we're discussing three different things:
1. development of code
2. development of specs
3. running a standards process
My concern is about #3, and not trying to do it in an ASF project.
My reason is simple: there
Filip at Apache wrote:
> jini is a trademark
> directory isn't
The question wasn't about Jini vs others. Geir said he wouldn't support
"Apache EMail" or "Apache Web", and I'd like to understand how those two
are different from "Apache Directory", "Apache Web Services", etc.
- Bob
---
Garrett Rooney wrote:
>>It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
>>are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
>
> Just because we did things in the past does not mean it was a good idea.
That's fine, but it doesn't help me understand the statement
about
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
> it?
I'll try again. It seems we're discussing three different things:
1. development of code
2. development of specs
3. running a standards process
My concern is about #3, and not trying to do it
Bob Scheifler wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
"technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
"Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
are d
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
It would help me if you could explain how th
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
are different/OK: DB, Directory,
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
>
> For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
> from people willing and able to r
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
> it?
>
> For example, what if we created [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Forget
> the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
> related to specif
Bob,
What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
it?
For example, what if we created [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forget
the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
related to specification work, and a list related to implemen
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I could go add that to the website if that would help. We're not a
> legalistic community where exploiting loopholes or lack of written law
> is encouraged...
Sorry, it was meant as a simple question. It's extremely hard for
a newcomer like me to distinguish between pe
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
>
> Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>
> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards proc
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership of"
rather than merely "categor
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to
Craig L Russell wrote:
> This is an interesting turn. The Jini web site doesn't currently say
> anything like this. It talks about "the specification" and "the
> implementation" as separable pieces.
They are "separable", and I'm not suggesting that change. At the same
time, they have not been
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 21:42 +0300, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> However, I'm still confused at the need to bring in a separate spec
> project. The Jini proposal states the scope of the project to be the
> "implementation" of the specification, and that scope is still valid
> regardless of what happens wi
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
"technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
"Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
"Apache Jini", it shouldn't be
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
> "Apache Jini", it should
Hi Bob,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Bob Scheifler wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
process for JINI.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one
for JINI
governance, and one for building the implementation
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>> I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
>> but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
>>
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
>> process for JINI.
>>
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
>> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
>> th
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
an equivalent of the existing Jini comm
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
> process for JINI.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
> the working code that has been
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Craig.Russell wrote:
It would appear then that the "Apache Jini" podling would be the
[spec project], and the "to be named" podling the [implementation
project]. Fortunately, the incubator should be warmed up for a
naming discussion.
Apache JINI and Apache JINN?
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> As the champion for JINI, I suppose it behooves me to try and get this
>> untangled.
>>
>> I'm not a Jini expert, but my understanding is that it is it's own spec
>> ecosystem. Therefore, I'm against having o
Craig.Russell wrote:
> It would appear then that the "Apache Jini" podling would be the
> [spec project], and the "to be named" podling the [implementation
> project]. Fortunately, the incubator should be warmed up for a
> naming discussion.
Apache JINI and Apache JINN? Deliberate play on words,
On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
As the champion for JINI, I suppose it behooves me to try and get this
untangled.
I'm not a Jini expert, but my understanding is that it is it's own
spec
ecosystem. Therefore, I'm against having one project doing software
implementation
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
> governance, and one for building the implementation and
> community around the working code that has been proposed.
> Comments?
None of an objecting nature. Would this satisfy the desires of the JINI
comm
As the champion for JINI, I suppose it behooves me to try and get this
untangled.
I'm not a Jini expert, but my understanding is that it is it's own spec
ecosystem. Therefore, I'm against having one project doing software
implementation that is called "Jini", just as I'd be against projects
like
57 matches
Mail list logo
