* Andrew Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com> [2014-02-21 10:36]: > > I think the "j2" convention is reasonable. > > This is where we disagree. I may have agreed if this was new, but we've been > using libjavalcms.so for the lifetime of 7 and I see no reason to change this. > > Also, "j2" seems pretty meaningless.
I had the same thoughts at first. But I asked this same question [1] and was informed that the 'j2' is for "java to" [2]. So this is the "java to lcms" bridge. Thanks, Omair [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2013-December/011274.html [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2013-December/011325.html -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681