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: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:38:55 +0200
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)
>