www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:24:45 GMT

On 22/01/2007, at 12:40 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:

> I understand your point, but no EG members started any discussion...

Fair point :)

>
> I can only speak from my experience, but if the ability to have  
> significant impact on the final result of a JSR is our yardstick,  
> then I think we will be voting "no" on most of them...at least from  
> my experience as a JCP EG member.

I see your point here, but I disagree.

I think we'd like to see all JSRs be more open and collaborative -  
nothing to argue there. I think it's great that there was some effort  
towards making this particular JSR more open.

However, in the case of this JSR, these concerns were specifically  
raised in the ASF's yes vote and the no vote of other EC members to  
negate the impression that this was just "rubberstamping". My  
reasoning was that, from looking at the mail archives, what was done  
here was something that could have been achieved without the JSR. And  
that's fine - the OSGi spec can stand on it's own two feet.

Either way, if yourself and the other EG members here feel that  
having a JSR was particularly beneficial and it couldn't have  
happened otherwise, then I'm not going to object. I just didn't get  
that impression from the mailing lists.

One other question I had that hasn't been discussed is the RI and TCK  
- we earlier encouraged these to be implemented through existing open  
source projects such as Felix or Equinox. Was there any movement  
towards this?

- Brett




Mime
View raw message