You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM> on 2009/02/02 19:26:43 UTC
Request for JSR 200 TCK (changed subject)
Looking at the JSR 200 page on the tck web site http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=200
it looks to me like there was no intent to make 200 available as an
independent JSR.
<<
2.13 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as
part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both.
Include version information for the profile or platform in your answer.
This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger".
2.14 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available
stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI and
TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections 1.1.5 and
1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).
N/A
2.15 Please provide a description of the business terms for the
Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.
This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger". The proposed
J2SE 1.5 licensing terms are available here http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/jsr/tiger/BizTerms.html
>>
I don't see anything here to indicate that the spec was intended to be
licensed for independent implementation... And "On 2004-09-13 Apache
Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment." http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=2774
Craig
On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I will - this is important. It can't be the case that a spec lead
> doesn't have to provide a TCK if the spec is licensed for
> independent implementation.
>
> geir
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:27 AM, Sian January wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the update Geir. Would be great to keep pushing for 200
>> if you can.
>>
>> Sian
>>
>>
>> 2009/1/29 Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>> I have!
>>>
>>> Current status on outstanding :
>>>
>>> 311: waiting for "executive signature" on the license (I dropped
>>> off a
>>> signed copy a little over a week or so ago when I was in bay area)
>>>
>>> 200: there is no standalone TCK for this JSR. I've suggested that
>>> they make
>>> one, or just give us the Java SE5 TCK. THe spec lead was required
>>> to
>>> deliver a TCK for this.
>>>
>>> 196: waiting on internal Sun legal for a license for us to sign.
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you managed to uncover anything :-) ?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope, nor 200. There's a stall somewhere. I'm digging.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, David Jencks
>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any progress on this one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thx for the reminder. I've sent the application for the
>>>>>>> license (full
>>>>>>> disclosure - this reminded me).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They don't come back this fast btw - 200 is also still pending
>>>>>>> approval
>>>>>>> by the board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll see what I can do to usher this forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been a week.... any progress on this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of course!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Geir,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have an implementation of jaspi for geronimo I'd like to
>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=196). The final release
>>>>>>>>>> of this spec was
>>>>>>>>>> on 10 Oct 2007. Could you please see if we can get the tck
>>>>>>>>>> for it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> number 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>> PO6 3AU
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Request for JSR 200 TCK (changed subject)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
The spec license that JSR 200 download page directs me to is the Java
SE 5 license, which is consistent with the intent to release this JSR
only as part of Java SE 5. What am I missing?
Specification: JAVA 2 PLATFORM STANDARD EDITION
DEVELOPMENT KIT 5.0
Specification ("Specification")
Status: Final Release
Release: August 25, 2004
Regards,
Craig
On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Go get the spec. Read the spec license.
>
> geir
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Looking at the JSR 200 page on the tck web site http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=200
>> it looks to me like there was no intent to make 200 available as
>> an independent JSR.
>>
>> <<
>> 2.13 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as
>> part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both.
>> Include version information for the profile or platform in your
>> answer.
>> This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger".
>>
>> 2.14 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available
>> stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI
>> and TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections
>> 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).
>> N/A
>>
>> 2.15 Please provide a description of the business terms for the
>> Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.
>> This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger". The
>> proposed J2SE 1.5 licensing terms are available here http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/jsr/tiger/BizTerms.html
>>
>> >>
>>
>> I don't see anything here to indicate that the spec was intended to
>> be licensed for independent implementation... And "On 2004-09-13
>> Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment." http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=2774
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> I will - this is important. It can't be the case that a spec lead
>>> doesn't have to provide a TCK if the spec is licensed for
>>> independent implementation.
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:27 AM, Sian January wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update Geir. Would be great to keep pushing for
>>>> 200 if you can.
>>>>
>>>> Sian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/1/29 Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>>>> I have!
>>>>>
>>>>> Current status on outstanding :
>>>>>
>>>>> 311: waiting for "executive signature" on the license (I
>>>>> dropped off a
>>>>> signed copy a little over a week or so ago when I was in bay area)
>>>>>
>>>>> 200: there is no standalone TCK for this JSR. I've suggested
>>>>> that they make
>>>>> one, or just give us the Java SE5 TCK. THe spec lead was
>>>>> required to
>>>>> deliver a TCK for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 196: waiting on internal Sun legal for a license for us to sign.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you managed to uncover anything :-) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, nor 200. There's a stall somewhere. I'm digging.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any progress on this one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thx for the reminder. I've sent the application for the
>>>>>>>>> license (full
>>>>>>>>> disclosure - this reminded me).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They don't come back this fast btw - 200 is also still
>>>>>>>>> pending approval
>>>>>>>>> by the board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll see what I can do to usher this forward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's been a week.... any progress on this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of course!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Geir,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have an implementation of jaspi for geronimo I'd like
>>>>>>>>>>>> to test
>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=196). The final release
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this spec was
>>>>>>>>>>>> on 10 Oct 2007. Could you please see if we can get the
>>>>>>>>>>>> tck for it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>>> number 741598.
>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>>>> Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Request for JSR 200 TCK (changed subject)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Go get the spec. Read the spec license.
geir
On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Looking at the JSR 200 page on the tck web site http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=200
> it looks to me like there was no intent to make 200 available as an
> independent JSR.
>
> <<
> 2.13 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as
> part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both.
> Include version information for the profile or platform in your
> answer.
> This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger".
>
> 2.14 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available
> stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI and
> TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections 1.1.5 and
> 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).
> N/A
>
> 2.15 Please provide a description of the business terms for the
> Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.
> This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger". The proposed
> J2SE 1.5 licensing terms are available here http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/jsr/tiger/BizTerms.html
>
> >>
>
> I don't see anything here to indicate that the spec was intended to
> be licensed for independent implementation... And "On 2004-09-13
> Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment." http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=2774
>
> Craig
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I will - this is important. It can't be the case that a spec lead
>> doesn't have to provide a TCK if the spec is licensed for
>> independent implementation.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:27 AM, Sian January wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the update Geir. Would be great to keep pushing for
>>> 200 if you can.
>>>
>>> Sian
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/1/29 Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>>> I have!
>>>>
>>>> Current status on outstanding :
>>>>
>>>> 311: waiting for "executive signature" on the license (I dropped
>>>> off a
>>>> signed copy a little over a week or so ago when I was in bay area)
>>>>
>>>> 200: there is no standalone TCK for this JSR. I've suggested
>>>> that they make
>>>> one, or just give us the Java SE5 TCK. THe spec lead was
>>>> required to
>>>> deliver a TCK for this.
>>>>
>>>> 196: waiting on internal Sun legal for a license for us to sign.
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you managed to uncover anything :-) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, nor 200. There's a stall somewhere. I'm digging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any progress on this one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thx for the reminder. I've sent the application for the
>>>>>>>> license (full
>>>>>>>> disclosure - this reminded me).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They don't come back this fast btw - 200 is also still
>>>>>>>> pending approval
>>>>>>>> by the board.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll see what I can do to usher this forward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's been a week.... any progress on this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of course!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Geir,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have an implementation of jaspi for geronimo I'd like to
>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=196). The final release
>>>>>>>>>>> of this spec was
>>>>>>>>>>> on 10 Oct 2007. Could you please see if we can get the
>>>>>>>>>>> tck for it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>> number 741598.
>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>> PO6 3AU
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>