Agreed. There's no reason to postpone our work to involve the JCP for
something that, on a good day, only 3 people on the planet care about.
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
If we can get an agreement here and implement it as the defacto
standard, I think we will all be better off.
-dain
On Apr 19, 2006, at 2:56 AM, Andy Piper wrote:
At 10:18 AM 4/14/2006,
Maybe we can get IONA and IBM to agree here :) I can attempt to
push it through IBM (and maybe Andy can try BEA).
My personal opinion is that this should go through the JCP. The
reason the original proposal failed was because it was defined in IDL
in order to be supportable on any ORB (i.e. non-Java) and there were
issues with the way this worked. I think this is really a Java
specific problem and therefore should be solved in a java-specific
way. Unfortunately I think protocol dictates that this go through the
OMG ....
Another alternative is to sneak it in via the Java-IDL spec which
already has Java-specific APIs. I suspect this would also be a breach
of protocol :(
andy
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
