> From: Jim Starkey <jas@...>
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 15:51:35 -0400

...

>
> This suggests that for compatibility and
> portability, Interbase should control and maintain a fixed set
> of base classes and native method implementations. We should
> pick something and live with it. Most (probably all) of the
> changes and extensions to the base classes have nothing to do
> with embedded database operation, so the version where we fork
> the classes is unimportant. Somehow I don't think AWT has
> much to do with UDFs. We need java.lang.*, java.math.*,
> java.sql.*, java.util.*, and very little else.

Am I misrecalling, or did Sun win a lawsuit against MicroSoft, the
fundamental meaning of which is that you cannot call something "Java"
unless you keep on tracking Sun's changes?

I thought that Sun's position on Java, like the DOD's position on Ada,
is that subsets are prohibited. "Java is what we say it is today;
tomorrow it may be some superset of today's definition; every Java
implementation is required to keep on chasing our expansion of the
language." Nicht wahr?

--
Chris Jewell developer/sysadmin voice: 831-431-6531
cjewell@... InterBase Software fax: 831-431-6510