Quartet JSR Votes - The results are in!

Java Community Process Logo

Some three weeks ago, following community discussions and feedback, Oracle announced that JSRs for Java SE 7, Java SE 8, along with two others for Coin (small language changes) and Lambda ("closures") were filed and up for voting. These two earlier posts gave some context about the "P" in JCP : "How to Read a JSR" and "The JSR Inception Votes by the EC").

The results are now in, and as Henrik Stahl discusses on his blog, all four submissions pass the ballot. Here are the vote details :

• Java SE 7 Release Contents (JSR 336): 12 YES, 3 NO, 0 Abstain.
• Java SE 8 Release Contents (JSR 337): 12 YES, 3 NO, 0 Abstain.
• Lambda Expressions for the Java Programming Language (JSR 335): 13 YES, 1 NO, 1 Abstain.
• Small Enhancements to the Java Programming Language, aka Project Coin (JSR 334): 13 YES, 1 NO, 1 Abstain.

Google and Apache voted no on the umbrella JSRs. Overall, neither the results nor the comments (check them out in the result links above) are really surprising for anyone that has been following the recent Java news. With this ratification, the Java standard will progress through the Java Community Process while the open source reference implementation will be delivered through the OpenJDK project. Java SE 7 is due in 2011 (see OpenJDK roadmap) and Java SE 8 in 2012. Java is moving forward again!

Comments:

JSR 337 is for Java SE 8 (not 7), would you like to correct this typo ;-)?

Posted by Christian on December 06, 2010 at 09:39 PM PST #

Done, thanks.

Posted by Alexis MP on December 06, 2010 at 09:45 PM PST #

Although it is good news that the progress goes on at the technical level many of us java developers are a bit irritated by the news of Oracle against e.g. Apache Harmony and Google.

Although it is not surprising that both of them voted with "no" in JSR 336 and 337 also others expressed their disappointment with the licensing terms:

\* Tim Peierls:
Changing my vote from "Abstain" to "No" to register my extreme disappointment with Oracle's failure to address EC questions about the licensing terms of this JSR. [...]

\* Werner Keil:
[...] I'm equally disappointed with the ongoing license dispute [...]

\* SAP AG:
While we are disappointed that Oracle has decided to deny Apache a TCK license for Java 7, SAP's vote is strictly based on the technical merits of the Java 7 specification, not on its license terms. While we believe it is important for Java 7 to proceed now, we want to express our disagreement about Oracle's decision regarding the TCK for Apache. [...]

\* IBM:
IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms. [...]

\* Eclipse Foundation, Inc.:
Eclipse is disappointed with the continuing issues around Java licensing. [...]

\* RedHat:
[...] However, we are extremely disappointed with the license terms and that a more open license has not been adopted by the Specification Lead. [...]

\* Credit Suisse:
[...] we strongly encourage Oracle to re-think its current position around licensing terms. We strongly support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP.

So, in the end it is NOT only a point of Apache and Google against Oracle. If Oracle continues to close Java the business market would drop dramatically for Java itself, because nowadays companies don't like to deal with closed things when there is an open alternative.

Oracle is definitively spread FUD here. Sorry to make this point on your blog entry but I think it is a crucial point that everyone should be aware of.

Posted by chaoslayer on December 11, 2010 at 06:42 PM PST #

I can understand that you share the concerns expressed by some of the EC members, but the post is not trying to hide anything (see links to votes and comments) and certainly not to spread FUD. Oracle is not trying to close Java. In fact nothing has changed from the Sun days other than the fact that we now have a strong Java SE roadmap. But do keep posting comments, this is not a PR blog.

Posted by Alexis MP on December 11, 2010 at 11:09 PM PST #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.