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 13:14:16 +0200
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
>