On 04-07-16 10:37, Peter wrote: > I'd like to see the project return to the days where we had a number of > active committers working together on the same goals
I'm sorry that i did not immediately answered your email. I think there needs to be more buy-in for change, than only the two of us. Also, the needs that i had for a easy communication system are covered by code developed in house. It allows for send and post, and async return of exceptions. A deviation from the river model. Maybe we can restart as a universal library for safe-RMI. With easy options for connections to and from known (or discovered by outside means) endpoints, IPv6, poking through UPNP and NAT firewalls, multi-homed host capable (without -D options on the command line). Modular addable lookup services, discovery, identity, locking, tspaces, etc. But at least a system with a very low knowledge threshold, and small jar footprint to get things working. We could use a more modern declarative system for specifying security needs, so that later we could create adapters for in and outbound rpc protocols with a bigger market reach. But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community apart, or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us, moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it all. G. Simon
