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 00:29:59 +0200
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)