Re: RFC: JVM Registry

2001-09-12 Thread Eric Schwartz
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

Re: RFC: JVM Registry

2001-09-11 Thread Eric Schwartz
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

Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!

2001-05-30 Thread Eric Schwartz
[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

Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!

2001-05-30 Thread Eric Schwartz
[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

Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!

2001-05-30 Thread Eric Schwartz
[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

Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!

2001-05-30 Thread Eric Schwartz
[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

Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!

2001-05-30 Thread Eric Schwartz
[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

Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!

2001-05-30 Thread Eric Schwartz
[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