Re: maxEntries in contents()

Jeff Ramsdale wrote:
> I consider clarification text to be on the order of a bug fix (if a
> minor one) that should not require spec-like approval. If the use of
> JavaDoc as a spec repository is a procedural inhibitor to improving
> Jini in a way that doesn't itself change the spec then I would suggest
> the spec shouldn't reside in the JavaDocs. But then again I feel that
> way regardless. There's a lot of spec-motivated boilerplate text in
> the JavaDocs that makes it more difficult than it need be to use the
> Jini libraries. If the spec is to be holy, then how about we make the
> JavaDoc less so--that way the masses can get their lay interpretation
> of the spec in the modern tongue.

There is another predominate issue and that is that the Sun contributed starter
kit is not in our control.  It is usable, alterable and forkable given the
change to AlV2.  But, from a practicle perspective, Sun is in control of the
contents of their delivered "product".  So, if we are going to "fix" the java
docs, we've either got to find a way to work together through the jini.org cvs,
or we might just need to create a separate version of the javadocs that we put
up somewhere.

I'm not at all advocating or suggesting a solution.  I'm just mentioning the
issues that have been going through my head.  The community owns the spec, but
we do not own the starter kit.

Gregg Wonderly

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVASPACES-USERS".  For general help, send email to
[email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".

To view past JAVASPACES-USERS postings, please see:
http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/javaspaces-users.html