Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I'm not sure I agree with the second half of that statement. The rules > are there to minimize the likelihood of someone using an interface that > might change incompatibly. For this particular usage, that's a known > risk that the community can decide to take -- and Sun won't have to deal > with any fall out from it, because this will be well outside of the > "supported" configurations.
The fork-and-maintain scheme is a known quantity. It's been done in the past. And, in fact, if you go back and read some of the rationale behind the ARC, such things were actually the _reason_ that the ARC was formed -- to avoid the consequences of this choice. But I've said my piece, and you know what I think of the plan. It doesn't matter, of course, as setting up a new gate is trivial. It's what comes after that's hard. Good luck. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj at workingcode.com>
