> I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect". Thanks.
> "commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based". > And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based > without java.security - it just makes some things easier. Your point is?.... > Let's see: C does not include the functionality of java.security, > so it must be a toy-programming language. C++ is the same way. > All languages except Java-with-java.security are toy languages? > Nonsense. You have a very parochial view of "commercial-level" > programming. My toaster doesn't have java.security neither, and it's not a toy. You try to make your argument logical by making illogical comparison? I apology for my poor english, but I'd appreciate you to make your point in your argument instead.