incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Hurley <Jim.Hur...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JIni Proposal
Date Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:12:26 GMT
While we continue to look forward to your review and
response ;-)   thought I'd mention a Jini event coming up
next month:

                              Tenth Jini Community Meeting
                                         Brussels, Belgium
                                    September 13-14, 2006

  * Session Abstracts:

  * Schedule:

It would be great to have Apache members there. The meeting is
open and free, and all interested developers are welcome.

We are hoping to provide an update on our "Jini" Proposal at
the meeting (the "Update on the Community" talk on the first
day is a placeholder whilst we get a better understanding on
where our Proposal sits with the incubator).

thanks -Jim

On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Jim Hurley wrote:
> We've had some good and spirited discussion on the JiniProposal
> over the last couple weeks. Thanks to everyone who chimed in with
> your thoughts and opinions.
> In reviewing the discussion again, I think we can focus on three key
> items which seem to be at the root of some debate. For each item, I'll
> try and propose a path forward and we'll see where we go from there.
> Thanks again, and we look forward to your review and response.
> -Jim
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------
> 1) "specifications" / API docs
> It appears that there are many (valid) lenses in which to view
> the specifications question. I'd rather not reintroduce all of the
> different perspectives and proposals, but rather focus on one
> that we believe is acceptable to the Jini Community, and hopefully
> will be to Apache.
> We would like to include the API docs ("specifications" seems to
> be a loaded term, with many different definitions and assumptions
> tied up in it) in the project. Many of the API docs are generated
> directly from the code (Javadoc), but would be made available
> as a separate download within the project. These would not be called
> "standards". They would be called "Jini API documents". They
> are intended to clearly define the APIs and semantics that are
> implemented as part of the project. Outside parties certainly have
> the right, and are welcome to use those docs to create alternative
> implementations - but that is not the predominant reason for producing
> the docs.
> The process used for introducing a change to the API docs would
> be developed by the <project> PMC and committers. We'd expect
> it to follow a similar process to proposed code mods, with the
> added responsibilities of making them visible to the overall
> Jini Community through the project email lists, and having
> open discussion and debate. We'd expect that the Community
> feedback would heavily influence the work performed on the
> API docs.
> The (perfectly reasonable) suggestion on creating a separate
> project for the governance of the specifications is not viable
> as we do not have the volunteers to run another project, nor was
> the intention of defining a specifications process within Apache
> something that the initial committers of our Proposal wanted or
> can satisfy.
> ------    ------    ------    ------    ------    ------     
> ------    ------    ------
> 2) Java package names (namespace)
> There are two namespaces that are part of the Proposal that
> have been discussed:
>  * net.jini.*  -- this is the primary Jini namespace defined in
>    the API docs, and chiefly for compatibility reasons with existing
>    implementations and applications, we can not change this.
> * com.sun.jini.* -- there are also some compatibility issues
>    associated with changing this namespace in the implementation,
>    but we understand the reasons for wanting to change this to
>    org.apache.<projectname>, and would do this as part of
>    the incubation phase of the project.
> ------    ------    ------    ------    ------    ------     
> ------    ------    ------
> 3) project name
> There is some pretty strong sentiment within the Jini Community
> for keeping the "Jini" name as part of the Apache Proposal. Our
> overall reading, however, is that given the scope of the project
> proposed and other technology sites (,
> on the web, that the name would not be acceptable to Apache.
> We, therefore, are open to discussing a name change to something
> else within the Jini Community.
> If there's agreement on the positions stated in 1 and 2 above,
> we'll assume there's general support for our Proposal to Apache
> and begin the name discussion in the Jini Community.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message