www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe+apa...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:08:26 GMT
Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com> writes:


> I know Sun has been mentioned a lot here as for the
> issue at hand with 176, but it is worth noting, IMO
> anyways, that Sun is the specification lead of 306
> which to me sounds promising per the conversation
> which has been going over 176. I know, as with most
> things, these things moving fast is always going to be
> good for some, but then for others it won't be. 
> I think part of the issue with JSRs in general though
> is they are investments, and without the investments
> most of us (including OSS developers) wouldn't have
> much to do. I think in the end it looks like these
> things are being worked on. So, hopefully you Apache
> folks will review 306 carefully and try to get issues
> such as the 176 issues resolved in it.

306 can't resolve the issues we're experiencing with 176.
For one thing, 306 won't apply to already-completed specs,
just specs created after 306 is ratified.  For another,
our problem with 176 boils down to a contract violation,
which cannot be fixed by simply coming up with a new contract.
If someone's willing and able to successfully violate the
old contract, you can't fix that situation by offering
them a new one with more favorable terms.

> It might take some time, but surely it isn't a hopeless cause.

Whether or not this is a lost cause IMO depends mainly
on how the JCP goes about enforcing its own rules.

> If the 176 issue can not be resolved in the way as
> being suggested by the letter, or until it is, could
> Apache not release a version of Harmony which has been
> tested which is considered and called compatible

No.  We do not even have the JCK (the compatibility test suite)
in our posession, because we refuse to accept it with the FOU

Joe Schaefer

View raw message