On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 02:35:41PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> So. What I propose is to create a JVM registry.
Alarm bells start going off when I hear "registry". Not knee-jerk
"registries much suck 'coz M$ does 'em", but bells nonetheless. This
seems like way too heavy-duty a solution for the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 02:35:41PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> So. What I propose is to create a JVM registry.
Alarm bells start going off when I hear "registry". Not knee-jerk
"registries much suck 'coz M$ does 'em", but bells nonetheless. This
seems like way too heavy-duty a solution for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:03:48PM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> > > While this does allow modification of the software, it effectively
> > > says that when you modify it, yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> I was curious about this, and I would like to ask if there is any
> consensus on how this affects free software. For example, the
> copyright notice at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/copyright-notice.html
> says
>
> Conse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> For interfaces, it may be ok to require only one
> instance (even that is arguable), but for the classes, it is not
> fair to allow only one implementation.
Argh, I just deleted the mail showing who suggested this, but I really
like the idea of using vi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:03:48PM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> > > While this does allow modification of the software, it effectively
> > > says that when you modify it, yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> I was curious about this, and I would like to ask if there is any
> consensus on how this affects free software. For example, the
> copyright notice at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/copyright-notice.html
> says
>
> Cons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
> For interfaces, it may be ok to require only one
> instance (even that is arguable), but for the classes, it is not
> fair to allow only one implementation.
Argh, I just deleted the mail showing who suggested this, but I really
like the idea of using v
8 matches
Mail list logo