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 the project
being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
implementation?
Hi Jukka-
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 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 Community's touchstone (or main
commons).
Don't know if that helps.
-Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
