Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39081 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2010 18:06:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2010 18:06:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 93824 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2010 18:06:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 93262 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2010 18:06:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 93108 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2010 18:06:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:06:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.112.202.4] (HELO mail.devtech.com) (66.112.202.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:06:13 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MessageIsInfected: false Received: from mail.devtech.com. ([66.112.202.4]) by mail.devtech.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1-dev) with SMTP ID 57 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:05:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Noel J. Bergman" To: Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Graduation of River Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:05:51 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 In-Reply-To: <4D050A8C.6070903@qcg.nl> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Sim IJskes wrote: > The implementation that resides in com.sun could be renamed into the > org.apache.river.impl namespace without causing to much conversion > activity with the users of river. I believe there are strong feelings > about keeping to the original specifications. So are you saying that River will work towards eliminating com.sun, but does not feel that it needs to be done now? > I know this is the prerogative of the IPMC to determine this, but your > remarks deviate a bit from the consensus formed on river-dev IMHO, > should we go back to the drawingboard and discuss your proposal within > the PPMC? Can you clarify? What remarks deviated from the consenus? Are you referring to the graduation proposal, or just the comments regarding com.sun? --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org