Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Feature Freeze before Final Draft
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Feature Freeze before Final Draft
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:15:17 +0200
Dear Experts,
While it's not a structural change what do you think about
https://java.net/jira/browse/UNITSOFMEASUREMENT-177 ?
We should not have Unit extend Comparable to allow enum usage, but in
theory it would be possible for Quantity.
The underlying interfaces in java.time.temporal do not extend Comparable,
it's implemented by concrete classes like Duration.
JSR 354 uses it at least in MonetaryAmount. Which approach do you prefer
for Quantity?
Thanks,
Werner
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Werner Keil
<
>
wrote:
>
Ok thanks. Guess if there's no mandatory requirement by PMO nobody needs
>
an address, do you?
>
>
Regards,
>
Werner
>
>
>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Leonardo Lima
>
<
>
>
wrote:
>
>
> You can keep only V2COM, please :) the other phrases are slogans.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 27, 2016, Werner Keil
>
> <
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> It was on the V2COM site earlier, but now it says "- making *IoT*
>
>> happen" so whether or not the "Hardware + Software" was also more a
>
>> slogan, I guess we can drop it unless Leo says otherwise;-)
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Jean-Marie Dautelle <
>
>>
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Copyright 2014-2016 Jean-Marie Dautelle, Werner Keil, V2COM
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Jean-Marie Dautelle <
>
>>>
>
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>> Hi Werner,
>
>>>> I am fine with your proposition, but since the official spec lead is
>
>>>> "V2COM", I would remove "- Hardware + Software" (confusing since this
>
>>>> is a
>
>>>> software only specification).
>
>>>> Cheers,
>
>>>> Jean-Marie.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Werner Keil
>
>>>> <
>
>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>> Btw. in the Final Release at least of JCache it was gone:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Specification Leads: Oracle America, Inc. and Greg Luck
>
>>>>> ("Specification Leads")
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Release: March 2014
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Copyright 2014 Oracle America, Inc. and Greg Luck
>
>>>>> All rights reserved.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> So everyone, especially V2COM/Leo please advise if you need the
>
>>>>> address or
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Specification Lead: Jean-Marie Dautelle, Werner Keil, V2COM
>
>>>>> ("Specification Leads")
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> as the Spec states now was fine?
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> The Copyright line
>
>>>>> Copyright 2014-2016 Jean-Marie Dautelle, Werner Keil, V2COM -
>
>>>>> Hardware + Software ("Jean-Marie Dautelle, Werner Keil, V2COM")
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> refers to V2COM with the full title, please also check if that's
>
>>>>> correct and we should use the same in the "Spec Leads" attribute?
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> JCache had a totally weird numbering scheme btw, its PFD was JCache
>
>>>>> 2.9 followed by JCache 1.0 for the final release ;-P
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> I assume 0.9 for the PFD is therefore fine followed by 1.0 in our
>
>>>>> case?;-)
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Cheers,
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Werner
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Werner Keil
>
>>>>> <
>
>
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Jean-Marie, Leo/all,
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Could you please have a look at the (Evaluation) License in the Spec
>
>>>>>> Document and advise, if either of you require the corporate address
>
>>>>>> in the
>
>>>>>> license as per:
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> 7. The version number of the specific specification document you are
>
>>>>>> submitting, the anticipated release date, and the full corporate name
>
>>>>>> and
>
>>>>>> address of the Spec Lead Member. This will be used to generate the
>
>>>>>> evaluation license for the posting. If you wish to include this in
>
>>>>>> your
>
>>>>>> download bundle(s), please send this information to
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> at least 2 days before submitting the rest of the materials.
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> JSRs 107
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> http://download.oracle.com/otndocs/jcp/jcache-2_9-pfd-spec/license.html
>
>>>>>> or 354
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> http://download.oracle.com/otndocs/jcp/money_currency-1_0_RC3-pfd-spec/license.html
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> show, at least one of the Spec Leads' address was mentioned. In case
>
>>>>>> of 107 it was only that of Oracle, so unless the license could be
>
>>>>>> completely without address, we may follow what e.g. 107 did and use
>
>>>>>> the
>
>>>>>> address of the corporate Co Spec Lead V2COM.
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Leo, would that be OK from your point?
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>
>>>>>> Werner
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Werner Keil
>
>>>>>> <
>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Hi Jean-Marie,
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the input. Will do in the coming days (Unit
>
>>>>>>> already in progress)
>
>>>>>>> Any suggestion about the number of weeks between a PFD and a Final
>
>>>>>>> Ballot or anticipated date for Final submission,see
>
>>>>>>> https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-pfd
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> And see item 7, it seems PMO at least needs to verify address or
>
>>>>>>> other information they had before.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Werner
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Jean-Marie Dautelle <
>
>>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>
>>>>>>>> For getProductUnits/getProductDimensions, my preference goes to
>
>>>>>>>> getBaseUnits/getBaseDimensions (more natural to me)
>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>
>>>>>>>> Jean-Marie
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Werner Keil <
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure, if that's a good idea?
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind, with the whole election and a huge number of EE
>
>>>>>>>>> JSRs all facing Renewal Ballot immediately after JavaOne I don't
>
>>>>>>>>> think we
>
>>>>>>>>> get a ballot done before the very last moment (since Public Review
>
>>>>>>>>> started
>
>>>>>>>>> in January the latest a Final ballot should start was also the end
>
>>>>>>>>> of the
>
>>>>>>>>> year) with 10 or more EE JSRs facing Renewal Ballot automatically
>
>>>>>>>>> plus
>
>>>>>>>>> there could be new EC members (ratified like V2COM, SouJava or
>
>>>>>>>>> others quite
>
>>>>>>>>> rarely, only if a member should no longer wish to participate) to
>
>>>>>>>>> vote on
>
>>>>>>>>> it then.
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not afraid either way, even if others than myself should be
>
>>>>>>>>> elected (given the ability to participate I have a solid track
>
>>>>>>>>> record, so
>
>>>>>>>>> likely run again unless something "very bad" happened with the
>
>>>>>>>>> whole Java
>
>>>>>>>>> EE situation and the role of the EC;-) but it would be a hassle to
>
>>>>>>>>> go into
>
>>>>>>>>> ballot then, especially if the Java EE situation could escalate
>
>>>>>>>>> and EC
>
>>>>>>>>> members may be drawn into a "negative spirit" like in 2007.
>
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Marie who hosted that "famous barn F2F" probably knows that
>
>>>>>>>>> best, others in the EC like Geir also should, so would we rather
>
>>>>>>>>> try to
>
>>>>>>>>> reach Final before that, around the July/August timeframe, and
>
>>>>>>>>> leave
>
>>>>>>>>> Hackathon etc. for a possible MR or 2.0 or should we risk getting
>
>>>>>>>>> sucked
>
>>>>>>>>> into that sort of "politics" again as 275 partly did? (the Public
>
>>>>>>>>> Review
>
>>>>>>>>> ballot was literally a month after the Oracle takeover:
>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_acquisition_by_Oracle)
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> Happy to hear a quick response by others, Jean-Marie and if they
>
>>>>>>>>> can Martin on behalf of major downstream projects like GeoAPI.
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind, Patrick stated, using JSR 275 is "half-legal"
>
>>>>>>>>> especially for commercial products, so we should also offer them a
>
>>>>>>>>> safe
>
>>>>>>>>> alternative as soon as possible.
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>
>>>>>>>>> Werner
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Leonardo Lima <
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Werner,
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it should be best to have the JSR as "almost-final" (I
>
>>>>>>>>>> believe that'd be proposed final draft?) by JavaOne. That way, we
>
>>>>>>>>>> can still
>
>>>>>>>>>> gather input in hackergartens and/or BoFs. We can have everything
>
>>>>>>>>>> ready to
>
>>>>>>>>>> file for Final just after 1-2 weeks after J1.
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>
>>>>>>>>>> Leo.
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Werner Keil <
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please also review the Spec Document again if you can.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> The license paragraph exists for "Evaluation" and
>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Implementation". Only when the Final version is approved and
>
>>>>>>>>>>> released both
>
>>>>>>>>>>> will go out to separate download deliverables (see all major new
>
>>>>>>>>>>> JSRs that
>
>>>>>>>>>>> went final like Money
>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr354/index.html,
>
>>>>>>>>>>> JCache, etc.)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the Proposed Final Draft only the "Evaluation" part is
>
>>>>>>>>>>> relevant.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from brushing up to SPI changes, I added another Use Case
>
>>>>>>>>>>> chapter on DevOps and Cloud. Quite a hot topic and thanks to
>
>>>>>>>>>>> being picked
>
>>>>>>>>>>> up by PCP/Parfait with the latest releases it is of course a
>
>>>>>>>>>>> good thing to
>
>>>>>>>>>>> mention (aside from everyone staring at or rushing to the Cloud
>
>>>>>>>>>>> right now;-)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> We aim for Code-freeze of the API and RI pretty much around
>
>>>>>>>>>>> June 30/July 1 (if there was any issue or significant input for
>
>>>>>>>>>>> changes we
>
>>>>>>>>>>> still have the weekend)
>
>>>>>>>>>>> July 4 is a holiday in the US, so PMO would not process
>
>>>>>>>>>>> anything before the 5th, so around then looks good to submit it.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Depending
>
>>>>>>>>>>> on how fast it's put online, the community and EC members may
>
>>>>>>>>>>> see it before
>
>>>>>>>>>>> the EC call on July 12th, but the Proposed Final Draft is just
>
>>>>>>>>>>> for review,
>
>>>>>>>>>>> no ballot there yet. JSR 354 had its PFD on March 13 and
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Approval Ballot on
>
>>>>>>>>>>> April 28. Final was out exactly 2 months later on May 13. Even
>
>>>>>>>>>>> if JavaOne
>
>>>>>>>>>>> was to snub and ignore it again (unlike the Awards) or Oracle
>
>>>>>>>>>>> ended up with
>
>>>>>>>>>>> a "JDK Personality Show" while the community looks for other
>
>>>>>>>>>>> forums like
>
>>>>>>>>>>> DevoXX, etc. a Final date ideally before JavaOne looks best and
>
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at
>
>>>>>>>>>>> 354 doable.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a Creation Review for Java SE 9 Umbrella (actually
>
>>>>>>>>>>> right now) and JSON-B has a Public Review Ballot at the end of
>
>>>>>>>>>>> July. So it
>
>>>>>>>>>>> could be best to aim at a nearby date, otherwise there are not
>
>>>>>>>>>>> too many
>
>>>>>>>>>>> ballots anyway.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> JSR 330 (Dependency Injection) showed, there seems almost no
>
>>>>>>>>>>> rule for a minimum PFD duration. It went out on Sep 22 followed
>
>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>
>>>>>>>>>>> ballot starting only a week later on Sep 29. I'd say at least 14
>
>>>>>>>>>>> days could
>
>>>>>>>>>>> be good in our case if asked, if you think we should take
>
>>>>>>>>>>> longer, please
>
>>>>>>>>>>> advise.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Werner
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> --
>
>>>>>>>> It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
>
>>>>>>>> intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -
>
>>>>>>>> Darwin's
>
>>>>>>>> Origin of Species (digest)
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> --
>
>>>> It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
>
>>>> intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. - Darwin's
>
>>>> Origin of Species (digest)
>
>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> --
>
>>> It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
>
>>> intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. - Darwin's
>
>>> Origin of Species (digest)
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Enviado do Gmail para celular
>
>
>
>