Howdy, >> My preferred short definition of J-C is: >> 'creating and maintaining small-scale, reusable, utility components >written >> in Java' >> >> Is this definition OK? Any comments? > >This pretty much boots Daemon out of J-C, which would be IMHO would be a >shame. Almost of the (supported) code in Daemon is written in C >(basically, >JNI wrappers to solve OS level restrictions on Java code), so it wouldn't >fit the definition. However, it is most definitely Java-centric, so I'd be >happiest if it stayed in Jakarta. > >I'm only a developer for Daemon, so I don't get to vote on its future. And >if it is booted out to A-C, then I'll follow it there. But I think that >it's best fit is with Jakarta.
Hmm. When you say "written in Java" that does largely kick out Daemon. But if you say "running on a JVM" than Daemon stays in ;) Either way, Daemon is a borderline case that can stay in jakarta-commons (minimizing work for us) or move (which accomplishes little IMHO). Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
