In response to the below criticisms I have removed my sponsorship of the org.jos.www source code tree. I'm sorry I brought it up.
OmegaBodhi 1999.05.20
Wasn't it decided long ago that all JOS written applications would go in org.jos.apps and any reusable, not application specific classes would go in org.jos.net? org.jos.www seems to be stepping on both of those toes. -- Avery J. Regier (17 Aug 1998)
I like inet myself, but really, some of the components belong under org.jos.net, and some under apps...
Not to be rude, but making www a member of org.jos is a little messy.
--BrillPappin 17-JAN-1999
Sorry, I don't think that it's a good idea to move ftp, telnet and others to WWW. These protocols have nothing to do with WWW. WWW is World Wide Web, based on the HTTP protocol. WWW is not the internet! So, let us place it to where it belongs: org.jos.net.
I agree, that for users internet seems to be the WWW. But you know and we know it isn't. So IMHO there is no need to open a new branch of the package tree.
Just my 0.02 cent.
KarstenSchulz 1999/01/18
Every legitimate request for a new package should be honored by the JOS Project. The request for a package should follow these steps:
- make up your own package name from your own initials and product name
- write the interfaces and classes
- test the project
- make it available to everyone
- after everyone has a chance to look at it, discuss how the package might fit into org.jos someday
To do otherwise, we might as well be OrganizedForNothing.
GilbertHerschberger 1999/05/17
|
Content of these pages are owned and copyrighted by the poster.
|
|
Hosted by:
|
|