harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: So today Sun announced...
Date Fri, 19 May 2006 16:37:12 GMT
Folks, this is a -dev list.  There are any number of opinion forums
elsewhere where you'll get a broader interest in your point of view.

Let's talk code.

Endre StĂžlsvik wrote:
> | 
> | I'm not sure how to answer this.  I believe you are a little confused about
> | how the JCP works and what we're doing here, and people are asking for.
> | 
> | First, we aren't advocating changes in the way Java SE specification is
> | defined.
> So you still want the JCP? Run by Sun? Or by who?
> | 
> | Second, the Java SE specification - the 'standard' you refer to - is already
> | defined by multiple companies and individuals that work on the Java SE
> | specification Expert Group, of which Sun is the Spec Lead.
> Hm.. I haven't quite come to see it that way: If you read some of the 
> blogs and whatnots on the Mustang pages: "Today I added this method, oh 
> yes!" and "Well, we whipped up this thing five minutes ago!". I don't 
> think a new method in java.lang.String is discussed back and forth in the 
> JCP before some Sun guy just makes it.
>   But I might just be mistaken.
> | 
> | That's an orthogonal issue, independent of implementation of specifications.
> I don't think so, and I guess that's where I feel something is lacking in 
> many comments I read around in the java communities: "oh my god, like, 
> open source java NOW, dummies!", while not thinking about the processes 
> behind the different scenes.
> | 
> | In fact, it's clear to me that OSS in Java EE has had a very positive effect
> | on both evolving the spec for users (i.e. the Spring and Hibernate influence
> | on Java EE/EJB3) as well as making the technology available to end-users at a
> | faster pace.
> I didn't know that there was that big a difference between EE and SE 
> regarding licensing / open source, so obviously I have missed out on some 
> points here.. Do you have any good links laying around?
> | 
> | What's the "Swing issue"?
> The "missing TCK trick":
>   http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/2006/05/what_sun_doesnt.html
> I read that in this thread, and have heard it mentioned before: The GUI 
> parts of "java standards" are a somewhat convoluted area.
> | 
> | > 
> | > PS: How do you folks feel about Tiger's development model?
> | 
> | Do you mean Mustang via "Project Peabody"? 
> *blush*, obviously!
> | I like the community aspect - it was a great step forward for Sun - and 
> | could be improved by adding committers from other companies and making 
> | the code available under an open source license.
> Yes, that's what I think too - I really don't see the big difference 
> between that and e.g. Tomcat. Go suggest some feature or submit some code 
> to Tomcat - and be sure that not everything is immediately accepted into 
> the codebase. The only difference is basically that you cannot fork the 
> Sun JDK. (And that Sun just suddenly may change their mind in the future - 
> but so can a open source project, in particular the new "try before you 
> buy"-style uses of the GPL, where the copyright for all code is retained 
> by one particular company.).
> But this is also the place where I find the comments about "today I rammed 
> in this new little method - whaddayouthink?". Proving, to me at least, 
> that Sun's developers have direct access to the CVS, while the rest of the 
> world doesn't. Which I don't find that bad, as long as they pour lots of 
> money over the process, w/o asking for much back!
> It could obviously still be improved - I guess they should listen a little 
> more, be more accepting, whatever - get "a real community" going. But 
> that's so much hassle! ;)
> | 
> | > 
> | > PPS: Why does Sun really bother to pour money into Java at all? The reason,
> | > I've come to understand, _was_ that they then could sell a bunch of their
> | > big-iron boxes to companies when the small intel-servers couldn't cope with
> | > a success of their developed java code. That argument is gone some years ago
> | > - so what's really in it for Sun, other than prestige?
> | 
> | To be frank, IMO it's leverage over a major control point in the software
> | industry, which doesn't need to change if they OSS their implementation.
> Yes, and they made this rather wonderful thing. Don't they deserve _some_ 
> particular _influence_ over it still? Really, I'm kinda sad that Sun 
> doesn't earn plenty-o-cash, given what they've given to the OSS scene and 
> the brave thing they did when CPU's still were named with numbers, and the 
> gigahertz could be counted on your digits: a new, friendly OO language, 
> Java, on a radically new platform-independent platform (!), the JVM. And 
> they've even tried to put some barriers in the road for total MS 
> domination - which apparently have backfired or not worked out very well..
> But, open source the _implementation_, and keep the JCP as it is, with Sun 
> having a special position?
> Regards,
> Endre.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

View raw message