On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
From the mentor standpoint, what's important to me is that there is no
ASF requirement to change those packages. The community can decide to
do it sooner, later, or not at all. The community can decide to make a
River imported packages of code from the original Sun grant under the
name 'com.sun.whatever'.
How important is it to change that?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands,
if you care to be able to run on a different JVM, than it needs to be fixed.
Generally it's bad to rely on some private packages/APIs
-M
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
River imported packages of code from the original Sun grant under the
name
From a name and branding perspective, removing the use of com.sun, could help
people focus on River as opposed to Sun's Jini Implementation. I have
several references to com.sun.jini.start. But, I also have my own fork of 2.1
that I'm still using in active deployments. River should be River.
11:51 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org; river-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Java package names
River imported packages of code from the original Sun grant under the
name 'com.sun.whatever'.
How important is it to change
be hard on
existing users.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:51 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org; river-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Java package names
River imported packages of code from
