Ah, but I see what you mean -- they mixed up Java compatibility and J2EE
compatibility -- quite different things.
Scott Stirling
JRun QA
Macromedia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Stirling
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:50 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Enhydra vs. JBoss
>
>
> The term required by Sun J2EE licensing agreements is "J2EE
> compatible" not "compliant." For example, JRun 3.1, which
> passes J2EE CTS and is fully "compliant," has to be marketed
> as "J2EE compatible."
>
> Scott Stirling
> JRun QA
> Macromedia
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:42 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Enhydra vs. JBoss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of danch
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:40 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Enhydra vs. JBoss
> > >
> > >
> > > Another thing that bothered me about the article was the
> > apparent lack
> > > of cluefulness about what open source _is_: they didn't
> mention the
> > > difference in license terms or the fact that JBoss can be
> > used by and
> > > contributed to by anyone.
> > >
> >
> > What bothered me also, was they were talking about "Java
> > compatibility" from
> > Sun. It's "J2EE" compliant, not java compliance.
> >
> > "That may undermine claims of Java compatibility."
> >
> > Makes it sound like JBoss might only run on NT or something
> like that.
> >
> > Bill
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
