brendan at meer.net
Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:07:48 -0800
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> What I'm concerned about is that the roadmap should be a document
> saying "this is what we are actually planning to do", rather than
> "this is what we'd like to do, and we'll cut stuff later".
The roadmap has always been more expansive than a scheduled plan to
ship. It has to include architecture hygiene, future growth
initiatives, and a few wild hairs. If we are planning 1.8.1/fx2, then
that's different. Given the time to 1.9 and the community radius, it's
wrong to talk *only* about what "we" (who? how narrowly are you
serializing) actually plan to do.
But of course, we (Mark Hammond) are getting close to done, so this is
kind of moot.
> A generic "we can solve this with stub installers and dynamic
> downloading" response isn't good enough!
You've heard that it is good enough, from at least two Brendans. I
think you are protesting too much. We do not provide the right JVM for
all uses of Java, including impending JavaConnect (JavaXPCOM it should
be called) support in XULRunner. Java and Python are extremely similar
in this case, but for the lack of XUL "scripting" via Java. But that's