Re: javax.naming work (Classpath vs ClasspathX)

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi,

David Brownell wrote: 
>
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >
> > So in principle all standards defined by what Sun calls J2SE
> > (Java 2 Standard Edition) will become part of Classpath (some day).
> > Whatever package they are in. 
>  
> Including moving projects betwen ClasspathX and Classpath when Sun 
> changes its mind about how it thinks bundling should be done?  Seems 
> to me the "java.*" vs "javax.*" distinction is a LOT more natural 
> than trying to track Sun's marketing efforts.   Tracking Sun's marketing 
> is pointless thrash, AFAICT. 

You do have a point there. The way Sun assembles the different standards
into somewhat arbitrary groups (J2SE, J2EE, J2ME) might not be the best
way to present the different libraries. But it is the way people are
used to group them. But I don't think the java.* vs javax.* distinction
is that more natural. What to think about java.applet, java.sql, java.beans,
java.rmi? javax.xml.* is an extension library, but java.util.prefs and
java.util.logging (which depend on javax.xml.*) are not? And the
javax.accessibility package would be extension, but java.awt which
implements it is not?

I would not be against splitting up the standard/extension libraries
different from how Sun does it. But I don't think splitting them between
java.* and javax.* is better. If we cannot come up with something better
then I would suggest using the J2SE as a way to define what we want to
think of as "standard/essential" libraries.

> >        And the ClasspathX 
> > people seem to agree that using the Classpath/libgcj GPL+linking-exception 
> > license is OK. 
>  
> Certainly that's what the JAXP support is using. 

Luckily there are things we do seem to agree on :)

Cheers,

Mark
-- 
Stuff to read:
    <http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore