From a name and branding perspective, removing the use of com.sun, could help
people focus on "River" as opposed to "Sun's Jini Implementation". I have
several references to com.sun.jini.start. But, I also have my own fork of 2.1
that I'm still using in active deployments. River should be "River".
Gregg Wonderly
On 10/12/2010 12:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
What Benson is talking about is not com.sun packages in the JDK, but
that Jini implementation classes resides in com.sun packages (compared
to spec classes residing in net.jini space)
They should go as part of a suitable level bump in versioning. The
impact on users is reasonably small...
Niclas
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf<mat...@apache.org> wrote:
if you care to be able to run on a different JVM, than it needs to be fixed.
Generally it's bad to rely on some "private" packages/APIs
-M
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies<bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
River imported packages of code from the original Sun grant under the
name 'com.sun.whatever'.
How important is it to change that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
