* toad [2006-11-02 16:22:46]:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:07:58AM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> > * toad [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
> >
> > > Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> > > features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
>
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:07:58AM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
>
> > Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> > features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
> > Some of the 1.5 language features are *r
toad wrote:
> Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
Which kind of license will Sun use? It's currently unknown to me. Could
you specify better? I believe it's relevant to start reconsidering the
issue.
* toad [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
> Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
> Some of the 1.5 language features are *really* nice in terms of saving
> space and avoiding unnecessary complexity.
>
> Note th
* toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-02 16:22:46]:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:07:58AM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> > * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
> >
> > > Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> > > features, now that Sun has public
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:07:58AM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
>
> > Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> > features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
> > Some of the 1.5 langu
toad wrote:
Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
Which kind of license will Sun use? It's currently unknown to me. Could
you specify better? I believe it's relevant to start reconsidering the
issue.
Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
Some of the 1.5 language features are *really* nice in terms of saving
space and avoiding unnecessary complexity.
Note that it may be some time before GCJX ships (an
* toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
> Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
> Some of the 1.5 language features are *really* nice in terms of saving
> space and avoiding unnecessary compl
I would suggest waiting for Sun to actually do it first. I heard it
would happen before January... so we'll know one way or the other soon
enough.
On 11/1/06, toad wrote:
> Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sou
I would suggest waiting for Sun to actually do it first. I heard it
would happen before January... so we'll know one way or the other soon
enough.
On 11/1/06, toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
features, now that Sun has publicly comm
Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
Some of the 1.5 language features are *really* nice in terms of saving
space and avoiding unnecessary complexity.
Note that it may be some time before GCJX ships (an
12 matches
Mail list logo
