You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM> on 2007/08/08 03:05:41 UTC
[DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on the
JPA 2.0 EG?
Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a TCK
license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the OpenJPA
community can decide to try to influence the specification that
directly affects us.
Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to email
discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker" alias.
Feedback is sent through an individual representative from that
company to the Expert Group.
There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are not
privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate in the
discussion.
The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation rules,
which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any OpenJPA
community member who wanted to participate might be bound by an
agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group discussion.
In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating in
the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Correction Re: [DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I made a typo in the message that follows. Please note the correction.
On Aug 7, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on
> the JPA 2.0 EG?
>
> Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
> Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a
> TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the OpenJPA
> community can decide to try to influence the specification that
> directly affects us.
The issue is with the TCK (JCK) license without FOU restrictions for
Java SE 5, not Java EE 5.
There are no issues with the TCK license for Java EE 5.
Sorry for the confusion.
Craig
>
> Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to
> email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker"
> alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from
> that company to the Expert Group.
>
> There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are
> not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate in
> the discussion.
>
> The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation
> rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any
> OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound
> by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group
> discussion.
>
> In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
> alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
> comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
>
> Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating
> in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
>
> Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Geir,
I'd like to clarify one thing with you.
It's my understanding that OpenJPA is free to implement the JPA
specification as long as the specification and TCK permit an open
source implementation, which is true for JPA 1.0 and to the best of
our knowledge will still be true for JPA.next (JSR 317).
Thanks,
Craig
On Aug 7, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Apache can still have a formal representation on the EG.
>
> We do feel the technology is good - the problem is that Sun is, in
> our opinion, in violation of the JSPA and therefore shouldn't be
> able to lead any new JSRs until the problem is fixed.
>
> But don't let that stop you from participating.
>
> geir
>
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on
>> the JPA 2.0 EG?
>>
>> Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
>> Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a
>> TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the
>> OpenJPA community can decide to try to influence the specification
>> that directly affects us.
>>
>> Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to
>> email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker"
>> alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from
>> that company to the Expert Group.
>>
>> There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are
>> not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate
>> in the discussion.
>>
>> The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation
>> rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any
>> OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound
>> by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group
>> discussion.
>>
>> In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
>> alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
>> comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
>>
>> Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating
>> in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
>>
>> Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Geir,
I'd like to clarify one thing with you.
It's my understanding that OpenJPA is free to implement the JPA
specification as long as the specification and TCK permit an open
source implementation, which is true for JPA 1.0 and to the best of
our knowledge will still be true for JPA.next (JSR 317).
Thanks,
Craig
On Aug 7, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Apache can still have a formal representation on the EG.
>
> We do feel the technology is good - the problem is that Sun is, in
> our opinion, in violation of the JSPA and therefore shouldn't be
> able to lead any new JSRs until the problem is fixed.
>
> But don't let that stop you from participating.
>
> geir
>
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on
>> the JPA 2.0 EG?
>>
>> Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
>> Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a
>> TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the
>> OpenJPA community can decide to try to influence the specification
>> that directly affects us.
>>
>> Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to
>> email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker"
>> alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from
>> that company to the Expert Group.
>>
>> There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are
>> not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate
>> in the discussion.
>>
>> The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation
>> rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any
>> OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound
>> by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group
>> discussion.
>>
>> In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
>> alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
>> comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
>>
>> Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating
>> in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
>>
>> Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Apache can still have a formal representation on the EG.
We do feel the technology is good - the problem is that Sun is, in
our opinion, in violation of the JSPA and therefore shouldn't be able
to lead any new JSRs until the problem is fixed.
But don't let that stop you from participating.
geir
On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on
> the JPA 2.0 EG?
>
> Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
> Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a
> TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the OpenJPA
> community can decide to try to influence the specification that
> directly affects us.
>
> Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to
> email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker"
> alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from
> that company to the Expert Group.
>
> There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are
> not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate in
> the discussion.
>
> The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation
> rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any
> OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound
> by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group
> discussion.
>
> In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
> alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
> comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
>
> Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating
> in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
>
> Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: [DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Apache can still have a formal representation on the EG.
We do feel the technology is good - the problem is that Sun is, in
our opinion, in violation of the JSPA and therefore shouldn't be able
to lead any new JSRs until the problem is fixed.
But don't let that stop you from participating.
geir
On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on
> the JPA 2.0 EG?
>
> Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
> Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a
> TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the OpenJPA
> community can decide to try to influence the specification that
> directly affects us.
>
> Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to
> email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker"
> alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from
> that company to the Expert Group.
>
> There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are
> not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate in
> the discussion.
>
> The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation
> rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any
> OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound
> by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group
> discussion.
>
> In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
> alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
> comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
>
> Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating
> in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
>
> Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Correction Re: [DISCUSS] JPA 2.0 expert group representation
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I made a typo in the message that follows. Please note the correction.
On Aug 7, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Does the OpenJPA community want Apache to have representation on
> the JPA 2.0 EG?
>
> Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed
> Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a
> TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the OpenJPA
> community can decide to try to influence the specification that
> directly affects us.
The issue is with the TCK (JCK) license without FOU restrictions for
Java SE 5, not Java EE 5.
There are no issues with the TCK license for Java EE 5.
Sorry for the confusion.
Craig
>
> Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to
> email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker"
> alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from
> that company to the Expert Group.
>
> There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are
> not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate in
> the discussion.
>
> The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation
> rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any
> OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound
> by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group
> discussion.
>
> In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail
> alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward
> comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
>
> Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating
> in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
>
> Please send comments to both dev and users aliases.
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!