JCP.next is a go!

Together with the rest of the SE/EE and ME executive committee members, the new elected members were voting on the JCP.next JSR (#348).

JCP.next

The ballot results shows a unanimous vote (list of voters) thus paving the way for the proposed changes, most of which are around transparency. Update: check out these two blogs.

I other JCP news, Java 7 (JSR 336) is now in Public Review with the ballot closing on June 6th.

Comments:

Why not make it an ISO standard and be done with it?

Posted by alex on June 04, 2011 at 09:07 PM PDT #

Hmm, Sun tried that a long time ago but that didn't quite work out. What would ISO bring that JCP doesn't?

Posted by Alexis MP on June 05, 2011 at 05:25 PM PDT #

I wonder what Apache's view is in all these? After all it has been probably the main contributor to JSR implementations.

Posted by Software development perth on June 06, 2011 at 12:18 PM PDT #

So, if moving to an open standard such as ISO is not a go, I wonder why Oracle suggested this approach before acquiring Sun...

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 12:20 PM PDT #

You didn't answer my question. I think you may have ISO confused with something else.

Posted by Alexis MP on June 06, 2011 at 03:43 PM PDT #

Re-Apache, yes no doubt, they've been a great contributor to the Java ecosystem (I wouldn't say JSR per say). My understanding is that the ASF hasn't scaled down its investment in Java-related projects.

Posted by Alexis MP on June 06, 2011 at 03:49 PM PDT #

Forget ISO, call it this: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/summaries/2007/December07-summary.html I know ASF hasn't scaled down development, I am talking about engagement in the JCP, that has scaled down to ZERO

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 04:00 PM PDT #

Would ISO put restrictions on TCK?

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 05:59 PM PDT #

I'm not familiar enough with the ISO processes. Do they even recognize TCK's? Is this rhetorics or do you have a specific request?

Posted by Alexis MP on June 06, 2011 at 06:13 PM PDT #

Alexis, I am pretty sure you know where i am comming from. An open field vendor neutral standard like oracle suggested here: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/summaries/2007/December07-summary.html Would not imply restrictions on the TCK. Having the spec lead putting restrictions on the TCK for its own economical interests is not a vendor neutral standard. Did Sun not put restriction on JavaSE implementations to avoid loosing revenue from JavaME licences? Isn't this what made Apache step down from all JSRs?

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 06:19 PM PDT #

I think you need to define "vendor neutral standard". Here's a definition of RAND - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing Anyways, how is this all impacting you?

Posted by Alexis MP on June 06, 2011 at 06:25 PM PDT #

Alexis, vendor neutral means that there are no restrictions on the implementation, the TCK or the licencing model. As you have probably followed the JCP voting, i align with what IBM calls their preferred licencing model. How it affects me? I am a java developer. With Apache on board of the JCP, their contributions will defently improve JSRs and my skills (as a developer) can always go further with wiser JSRs. If harmony had no licencing restrictions, porting code to android would be easier, would save time and reduce costs. I could do more. With several implementations of Java SE, the risk would be lower (as in EE) and there would be more engagement in the java platform from the community. If JDK was to be released under the Apache Licence, everyone in the IT market could align in intentions and contribute to a greater platform,

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 06:45 PM PDT #

And now, a question for you? How would it affect oracle if there were to be no restrictions on the TCK?

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 06:46 PM PDT #

I think you under-estimate the importance of Java compatibility. OpenJDK is an open source project and community. No doubt you've seen the recent increased activity there. While the ASF was an important contributor, I wouldn't dismiss the role of the 15 EC members and the hundreds of other JCP participants.

Posted by Alexis MP on June 06, 2011 at 07:25 PM PDT #

I may be under estimating it... But what does java compatibility have to do in all this: Aren't ibm and jrockit Java SEs compatible with OpenJDK?

Posted by guest on June 06, 2011 at 07:32 PM PDT #

Sure they are, they have to!

Posted by Alexis MP on June 06, 2011 at 07:39 PM PDT #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.