tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart <Eduardo.Pelegrillop...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Drafts of JSRs (was open processes).
Date Fri, 07 Jan 2000 18:19:58 GMT
Hi Ben.

I do not have any real experience with IETF but I know that in some
cases and with some companies public discussions are not really
practical.  Also, some people who have worked with IETF think it tends
to be very slow.

In any case, I would like to suggest we do the best we can within the
process we have.  As I had said before, there is a fair amount of
flexibility in JCP.  For example, although the JCP indicates we need an
expert group, I expect that TOMCAT-DEV will be very close to the design
cycle, and TOMCAT-DEV is very open.

And, on that topic, attached are the 2 drafts of the JSRs that we expect
to submit to the JCP on Monday.  The JSRs are intentionally pretty vague
and really most things can be changed by the expert group.  At this
point, the intention of the JSR is just to say: "we want to start
working to make things like this happen". 

The JSRs numbers are just made up until when the JCP assigns the real
numbers.  The JSRs are also lacking the list of endorsees, which I will
add before submitting to the JCP.  If you want to endorse the JSR let me
know; we can't have a very long list for practical reasons, but maybe we
can create a collective "tomcat" entry, or something like that.  In any
case the biggest benefit of the endorsement list is that it makes it
much more likely that the JCP will approve the request; it has no impact
in later applying to the expert group.

Thanks,

	- danny coward, anil vijendran & eduardo pelegri-llopart

==========

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:18:20 +0000
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Subject: Re: open processes...
Message-ID: <3872396C.CF7BFD5C@algroup.co.uk>

James Todd wrote:
> 
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> 
> >
> > * When the first public drafts of a new specification are released, there
> >   is usually no hint of all the back room discussions, and rejected design
> >   choices, that went on before that release occurred.  Unfortunately, this
> >   sometimes leaves people wondering "why in the heck did they choose
> >   THAT approach," and can lead to the (usually mistaken) conclusion that
> >   no other alternative was considered.
> 
> this one ranks pretty high in my book. while it is possible to build an
> implementation
> with nothing but a spec in hand it would be extremely helpful to see the
> formulating thoughts and discussions that went into the decission making process.

Which leads one to wonder why things aren't done in the IETF WG way
(i.e. working groups are open to all comers). Because the only way you
are ever going to get access to the thoughts and discussions is by full
disclosure, and if you are going to do that, you may as well let people
join in before it is too late.

Cheers,

Ben.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message