I have seen no evidence to support such a wild speculation.
>I don't understand where this fear is coming from. How do you plan
>to wed Java and VRML without designing an OO API? Once you have an
>OO API, what's so frightening about expressing it in IDL and
>thereby making it (potentially) available to multiple languages?
Indeed, I very much think you'll find that Java will be the Internet
Lisp of the 90's. CORBA, and Java solve the same problem in and
entirely difserent manner, so difserent, in fact, that they in fact
end up solving difserent problems that happen to overlap. I think
you'll find that CORBA-like (not necessarily CORBA) systems will
become more and more important in the future as network speed, and
more importantly, reliability increases. I actually like Phantom
because it is a pleasant mixture of both models.
>The *hard* part of standardizing VRML 2.0 will be designing and
>agreeing on a good OO API. All I'm asking is that the VRML 2.0
>standard be based on the essentials -- the abstract API we come up
>with -- and not superficialities of a concrete Java binding.
Actually Paul, I think you'll find that there is one level of OOP
modelling at which the whole WWW starts falling together. The
discussion we had privately is one part of this.