river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Renaldo Bodega" <renaldo.bod...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:42:05 GMT
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> 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
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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message