Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Feature Freeze before Final Draft
- From: Jean-Marie Dautelle <
>
- To:
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Feature Freeze before Final Draft
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:29:02 +0200
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)