incubator-river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <>
Subject Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
Date Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:31:19 GMT
Renaldo Bodega wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Niclas Hedhman <> wrote:
>> Sorry to say Gregg (and others), I am getting really frustrated with
>> the "There is nothing wrong!" attitude from 'old timers', when clearly
>> the most clever technology have been unable to conquer every Java
>> developer's mind and toolkit, and having had 8-10 years to do so.
>> I am NOT your regular newbie; I adopted Jini 1.0/1.1 in a critical
>> application in 2001,
> 'old timers', huh? Do any of the other 'old timers' on this list
> think it's a bit ironic that one of the members of the expert
> group that voted down JSRs 76 & 78 is now frustrated, and
> complaining about people preventing progress with Jini/River?
> No matter what role that member played in the demise of those
> JSRs, it still seems hard to escape the irony contained in the fact
> that the Apache Foundation itself voted 'no' on both JSRs. Note
> that  one of the more respected names in Java lore (Doug Lea)
> voted yes on both JSRs, so I'm guessing that what was being
> proposed was not without merit. Kinda makes you wonder whether
> those proposals would have passed if IBM or BEA or the Apache
> Foundation had made them, doesn't it?
> By the way, for those who are not familiar with the history,
> JSRs 76 & 78 proposed that extensions to the Java security
> model be made that would address certain limitations that model
> had with respect to supporting distributed systems written in
> Java (JSR 76); and that a new RMI implementation be included in
> the JDK that supports those secuity extensions (JSR 78). Although

And that same RMI addition also supported dynamic proxies and many other
things (including a much better separated and customisable comms stack)
that arrived much later in JDK RMI - well after Jini had them (and
proposed them in these same JSRs).

> neither JSR made it into the JDK, the results of what would have
> been there can be seen -- and used -- today as the Jini (now River)
> security model, and the JERI implementation of RMI.
> Can't say how diffrerent the world of Jini/River would be today if
> those JSRs had become part of the Java platform, but it''s certain
> that the number of classes included in the Jini/River jars would be
> greatly reduced; which would mean, I imagine, that folks would
> have less to criticize and complain about.
> -- rb

View raw message