Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 64028 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2001 19:40:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 63934 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2001 19:40:40 -0000 Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Consolidated feedback on JDK 1.4? To: general@jakarta.apache.org, general@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Sam Ruby" Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:25:18 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM301/04/M/IBM(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/01/2001 03:40:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Jon Stevens wrote: > > I'm all for having an "Apache" response from the PMC Chair of Jakarta. > > Lets make a press release at JavaOne and point out that Sun can't even > follow their own testing compatibility suites that they want to force > everyone else (ie: the licensing issues in the JCP) to follow. :-) I have no problem taking the point on this issue, but at the moment I have no plans for a press release or even to attend JavaOne. I've been doing this for some time, and I have seen lots of projects give "reasons" why they needed to break backwards compatibility, but just this one time - honest. I'm confident that the people developing JDBC 3.0 feel the same way, particularly as it appears that it will have a new major version number. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org