You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2007/07/03 22:08:55 UTC
Fw: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
FYI, Another Vote coming up - 16 Jul, 2007
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jcp Pmo <Ha...@SUN.COM>
To: JCP-INTEREST@JAVA.SUN.COM
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 1:46:23 PM
Subject: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
The following JSR is now available for review:
JSR-000316 Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 (Java EE 6) Specification
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=316
"This JSR is to develop Java EE 6, a release of the Java
Platform, Enterprise Edition targeted to ship in 2008."
Please submit your comments to jsr-316-comments@jcp.org
The review for this JSR closes on 16 July 2007.
You are also welcome to nominate yourself for the Expert Group for
the JSR at this time, as indicated on the JSR web page.
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to listserv@java.sun.com and include in the body
of the message "signoff JCP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
listserv@java.sun.com and include in the body of the message "help".
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 4:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> Yep...Im on this one, so definitely spell out how we (Apache) will
>> proceed.
>
> Two random observations;
>
> "This JSR will not itself define any new APIs, rather it will
> enumerate APIs
> defined in other JSRs or through the JCP maintenance process."
That is not really accurate. This spec defines the application
client api and common stuff like how JNDI and annotations work in the
platform.
-dain
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
We've been through this discussion...see my previous email on "please
ignore" ;-)
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> I really believe that voting "no" for political or beliefs will only
>> cause us to be viewed in a light different than we are currently
>> perceived. If we are not going to vote on the technical aspects of
>> the JSR, l recommend we make a public statement to pull out of the
>> JCP or JSR. If we vote "no" for political purposes, I certainly
>> believe we will do some damage with our reputation. I am behind our
>> ideals 100%, but let's go about communicating it a way that shows some
>> class and not in an obstructive way.
>
> Why is it political to vote "no" when the spec lead has a history
> of violating a contractual requirement of all spec leads? Would you
> also complain if we denied commit access to someone who regularly
> submitted copyright violations? There is no effective difference.
>
> This vote is on whether the spec lead can create an EG and own this
> subset of Java. There is absolutely nothing technical about the EC vote.
> It is a practical matter of license concerns about a technology and
> the unwillingness of a spec lead to adhere to the agreed terms.
>
> ....Roy
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> I really believe that voting "no" for political or beliefs will
> only cause us to be viewed in a light different than we are
> currently perceived. If we are not going to vote on the technical
> aspects of the JSR, l recommend we make a public statement to pull
> out of the JCP or JSR. If we vote "no" for political purposes, I
> certainly believe we will do some damage with our reputation. I am
> behind our ideals 100%, but let's go about communicating it a way
> that shows some class and not in an obstructive way.
Why is it political to vote "no" when the spec lead has a history
of violating a contractual requirement of all spec leads? Would you
also complain if we denied commit access to someone who regularly
submitted copyright violations? There is no effective difference.
This vote is on whether the spec lead can create an EG and own this
subset of Java. There is absolutely nothing technical about the EC
vote.
It is a practical matter of license concerns about a technology and
the unwillingness of a spec lead to adhere to the agreed terms.
....Roy
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
This is a few days old due to moderation of the iPhone ;-) We are past
this on another thread so please ignore it ;-)
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
> I really believe that voting "no" for political or beliefs will only
> cause us to be viewed in a light different than we are currently
> perceived. If we are not going to vote on the technical aspects of the
> JSR, l recommend we make a public statement to pull out of the JCP or
> JSR. If we vote "no" for political purposes, I certainly believe we
> will do some damage with our reputation. I am behind our ideals 100%,
> but let's go about communicating it a way that shows some class and not
> in an obstructive way.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
>>
>>> So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we
>>> accept the
>>> various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated.
>>
>> It's not complicated at all if you just vote "no" on any Sun-led spec
>> until they are in compliance with the JSPA. We don't need to draft
>> an expansive JCP policy to determine how to vote on such JSRs.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Schaefer
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
I really believe that voting "no" for political or beliefs will only
cause us to be viewed in a light different than we are currently
perceived. If we are not going to vote on the technical aspects of
the JSR, l recommend we make a public statement to pull out of the
JCP or JSR. If we vote "no" for political purposes, I certainly
believe we will do some damage with our reputation. I am behind our
ideals 100%, but let's go about communicating it a way that shows some
class and not in an obstructive way.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>
wrote:
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
>
>> So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we
>> accept the
>> various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated.
>
> It's not complicated at all if you just vote "no" on any Sun-led spec
> until they are in compliance with the JSPA. We don't need to draft
> an expansive JCP policy to determine how to vote on such JSRs.
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> I don't know why Geir didn't JFDI this into action yesterday, but I
>> suspect peer pressure played a large role in his selection of a
>> mediocre "abstain" over an IMO truly excellent "no".
>
> Well, a bunch of reasons.
>
> First, "no" should be part of a general plan, which I had planned for
> later on this summer. Ah well. If we're going to go "no", we go all
> in.
For me the "go all in" moment happened when we published the
letter. If I didn't feel that way I wouldn't be subscribed
to this mailing list. I am still bothered by the fact that
we haven't managed to do much in the way of consequences
regarding Sun's failure to respond to us.
I agree we shouldn't act out of anger, but I disagree that
waiting much longer to make some changes in how we conduct
ourselves is in the best interests of the foundation.
>
> Also, I represent the ASF, and it's good to see ASF community
> engagement (as a general thing).
>
> I thought our engagement on this issue was horrendous in it's
> substance, but hey, that's just my POV.
>
> (And if I voted "no", I would have been told that I wasn't a proper little
> consensus-gatherer.... )
>
Sure, but we aren't a democracy. It's *merit* that is the
criterion we use to make decisions, not popularity. It
would have been perfectly Apache-like to conclude that
abstaining had less merit than voting no, even if that
wound up upsetting many people on this list. This list
isn't a recognized group of decision-makers at the ASF,
it's just a discussion list.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> writes:
>
>> Is another open letter called for to let them know what is coming? Is
>> there anything we can do to try and get other voters to take a
>> similar
>> line?
>
> Sun is quite capable of reading this mailing list, so we don't need
> to send them another invitation. I don't know why Geir didn't JFDI
> this into action yesterday, but I suspect peer pressure played a
> large role in his selection of a mediocre "abstain" over an IMO
> truly excellent "no".
Well, a bunch of reasons.
First, "no" should be part of a general plan, which I had planned for
later on this summer. Ah well. If we're going to go "no", we go all
in.
Also, I represent the ASF, and it's good to see ASF community
engagement (as a general thing). I thought our engagement on this
issue was horrendous in it's substance, but hey, that's just my POV.
(And if I voted "no", I would have been told that I wasn't a proper
little consensus-gatherer.... )
(Sun is reading this list.)
geir
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:17 PM, "Justin Erenkrantz"
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> I completely concur that only Geir could make the decision based on
>> several different points of view expressed over 24-48 hours, and only
>> Jeff will be in a position to make a decision on JSR 316 under the
>> advice and suggestions he sees on this thread.
>
> I don't think that's quite accurate. AIUI, the votes are cast by the
> JCP Executive Committee (of which Geir is the ASF's representative) -
> not by proposed Expert Groups. So, the responsibility for the
> decision is with Geir - not Jeff. If I'm wrong, *please* correct me.
> -- justin
Certainly very possible ;-) I just believe that when this is voted as
a JSR, I will hopefully be the Apache guy ;-)
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/3/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> I completely concur that only Geir could make the decision based on
>> several different points of view expressed over 24-48 hours, and only
>> Jeff will be in a position to make a decision on JSR 316 under the
>> advice and suggestions he sees on this thread.
>
> I don't think that's quite accurate. AIUI, the votes are cast by the
> JCP Executive Committee (of which Geir is the ASF's representative) -
> not by proposed Expert Groups. So, the responsibility for the
> decision is with Geir - not Jeff. If I'm wrong, *please* correct me.
> -- justin
I guess it depends what votes we're talking about.
Assuming that Jeff's spec lead allows votes (and Sun has led JSRs
where there were no such civilities), then Jeff should be casting
votes w/in the EG.
When the spec reaches a milestone i the process, then the Exec
Committee votes, on which the ASF has a seat, to which I represent
the ASF.
geir
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 7/3/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I completely concur that only Geir could make the decision based on
> several different points of view expressed over 24-48 hours, and only
> Jeff will be in a position to make a decision on JSR 316 under the
> advice and suggestions he sees on this thread.
I don't think that's quite accurate. AIUI, the votes are cast by the
JCP Executive Committee (of which Geir is the ASF's representative) -
not by proposed Expert Groups. So, the responsibility for the
decision is with Geir - not Jeff. If I'm wrong, *please* correct me.
-- justin
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 9:16 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> writes:
>>
>>> Is another open letter called for to let them know what is
>>> coming? Is
>>> there anything we can do to try and get other voters to take a
>>> similar
>>> line?
>>
>> Sun is quite capable of reading this mailing list, so we don't need
>> to send them another invitation. I don't know why Geir didn't JFDI
>> this into action yesterday, but I suspect peer pressure played a
>> large role in his selection of a mediocre "abstain" over an IMO
>> truly excellent "no".
>
> I completely concur that only Geir could make the decision based on
> several different points of view expressed over 24-48 hours, and only
> Jeff will be in a position to make a decision on JSR 316 under the
> advice and suggestions he sees on this thread.
LOL. Stop. You're making my tummy hurt. That's why we have a board
meeting on monday, right?
>
> Roy is correct, the board will create new policy or designate a group
> to determine the new policy, but right now they've entrusted specific
> committers to field these JSR's under their own good judgment. In the
> near term there will be some additional guidelines to help them make
> that call.
>
> Bill
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> writes:
>
>> Is another open letter called for to let them know what is coming? Is
>> there anything we can do to try and get other voters to take a similar
>> line?
>
> Sun is quite capable of reading this mailing list, so we don't need
> to send them another invitation. I don't know why Geir didn't JFDI
> this into action yesterday, but I suspect peer pressure played a
> large role in his selection of a mediocre "abstain" over an IMO
> truly excellent "no".
I completely concur that only Geir could make the decision based on
several different points of view expressed over 24-48 hours, and only
Jeff will be in a position to make a decision on JSR 316 under the
advice and suggestions he sees on this thread.
Roy is correct, the board will create new policy or designate a group
to determine the new policy, but right now they've entrusted specific
committers to field these JSR's under their own good judgment. In the
near term there will be some additional guidelines to help them make
that call.
Bill
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
I did my best to summarize the crux of the matter though I could not
pretend to not have an opinion (for it is one I've long held). I also
wrote those I quoted including Mr. Sundstrom to verify they did not feel
their quotes had been misused. Sam didn't reply which means he
absolutely sees himself as analogous to Ronald Reagan. I'll happily
summarize informed counterpoints as they occur.
I applaud Sam for gathering the thoughts of others to advise the board
as well as pinging those who weren't paying attention.
Tim Bray wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> Sun is quite capable of reading this mailing list, so we don't need
>> to send them another invitation.
>
> Not only that, but it's being blogged:
> http://blog.buni.org/blog/acoliver/2007/07/03/The-Apache-Conundrum
>
> My only regret is that the discussion has been so voluminous, because
> there are a number of very busy people for whom its contents would be
> very instructive. -Tim
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Tim Bray <Ti...@Sun.COM>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Sun is quite capable of reading this mailing list, so we don't need
> to send them another invitation.
Not only that, but it's being blogged: http://blog.buni.org/blog/
acoliver/2007/07/03/The-Apache-Conundrum
My only regret is that the discussion has been so voluminous, because
there are a number of very busy people for whom its contents would be
very instructive. -Tim
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> writes:
> Is another open letter called for to let them know what is coming? Is
> there anything we can do to try and get other voters to take a similar
> line?
Sun is quite capable of reading this mailing list, so we don't need
to send them another invitation. I don't know why Geir didn't JFDI
this into action yesterday, but I suspect peer pressure played a
large role in his selection of a mediocre "abstain" over an IMO
truly excellent "no".
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
>
>> So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we accept the
>> various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated.
>
> It's not complicated at all if you just vote "no" on any Sun-led spec
> until they are in compliance with the JSPA. We don't need to draft
> an expansive JCP policy to determine how to vote on such JSRs.
+1. As my understanding of how the JCP works grows, the more
approriate this approach seems. It also provides a way forward in
light of the complete lack of response to our open letter.
Is another open letter called for to let them know what is coming? Is
there anything we can do to try and get other voters to take a similar
line?
Mark
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
>
>> So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we
>> accept the
>> various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated.
>
> It's not complicated at all if you just vote "no" on any Sun-led spec
> until they are in compliance with the JSPA. We don't need to draft
> an expansive JCP policy to determine how to vote on such JSRs.
Nope. :)
geir
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
> So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we accept the
> various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated.
It's not complicated at all if you just vote "no" on any Sun-led spec
until they are in compliance with the JSPA. We don't need to draft
an expansive JCP policy to determine how to vote on such JSRs.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Yep...Im on this one, so definitely spell out how we (Apache) will proceed.
Two random observations;
"This JSR will not itself define any new APIs, rather it will enumerate APIs
defined in other JSRs or through the JCP maintenance process."
So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we accept the
various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated.
"Java EE 6 is the Enterprise Edition of version 6 of the Java platform, and thus
will be built on Java SE 6."
So are we having FOU issues with J2SE 6 or only J2SE 5?
Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Yep...Im on this one, so definitely spell out how we (Apache) will
proceed.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 3, 2007, at 4:08 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> FYI, Another Vote coming up - 16 Jul, 2007
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Jcp Pmo <Ha...@SUN.COM>
> To: JCP-INTEREST@JAVA.SUN.COM
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 1:46:23 PM
> Subject: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification
>
> The following JSR is now available for review:
>
> JSR-000316 Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 (Java EE 6)
> Specification
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=316
>
> "This JSR is to develop Java EE 6, a release of the Java
> Platform, Enterprise Edition targeted to ship in 2008."
>
> Please submit your comments to jsr-316-comments@jcp.org
> The review for this JSR closes on 16 July 2007.
>
> You are also welcome to nominate yourself for the Expert Group for
> the JSR at this time, as indicated on the JSR web page.
>
> ===
> ===
> =====================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to listserv@java.sun.com and include in
> the body
> of the message "signoff JCP-INTEREST". For general help, send email
> to
> listserv@java.sun.com and include in the body of the message "help".