Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-oro-user-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 69352 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 16:48:44 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 16:48:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 9538 invoked by uid 97); 27 Feb 2003 16:50:22 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-oro-user@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 9531 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 16:50:22 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 16:50:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 67905 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2003 16:48:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact oro-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "ORO Users List" Reply-To: "ORO Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list oro-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 67843 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 16:48:21 -0000 Received: from 66-207-66-79.black.dmt.ntelos.net (HELO palaka.bullwip.com) (66.207.66.79) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 16:48:21 -0000 Received: from gen2tek007 (gen2tek-007.bullwip.com [192.168.0.7]) by palaka.bullwip.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id h1RGiHu5022840 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:44:17 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Jerome Jacobsen" To: "ORO Users List" Subject: RE: ORO version conflicts Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:46:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <200302271633.h1RGX0kd004549@yoda.savarese.org> Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Daniel, You're a big name in the Java community. If you emailed jsr-154-comments@jcp.org do you think there's any chance they'd consider changing this? I doubt it, especially this late in the process. But maybe they'd consider your comment for a post 2.4. Thanks for bringing this to light. > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel F. Savarese [mailto:dfs@savarese.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:33 AM > To: ORO Users List > Subject: Re: ORO version conflicts > > > > In message > , "Jero > me Jacobsen" writes: > >isn't is a surprise and a big disapointment to me too. Man they > better make > >this required in the next spec version. In the meantime I'll > try and avoid > > I just downloaded the Servlet 2.4 proposed final draft and the wording of > section 9.7.2 is exactly the same as in 2.3 :( > > daniel > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: oro-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: oro-user-help@jakarta.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: oro-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: oro-user-help@jakarta.apache.org