Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Feature Freeze before Final Draft
- From: Leonardo Lima <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Feature Freeze before Final Draft
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:57:06 -0500
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
>
<
>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
wrote:
>
>
> Copyright 2014-2016 Jean-Marie Dautelle, Werner Keil, V2COM
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Jean-Marie Dautelle
>
> <
>
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
> 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
>
>> <
>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>> 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
>
>>> <
>
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>>> 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
>
>>>> <
>
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>>>> 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 <
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>>>>> 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
>
>>>>>> <
>
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>>>>>> 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
>
>>>>>>> <
>
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>>>>>>> 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 <
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
');>>
>
>>>>>>>> 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