www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:12 GMT

On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
>>>> Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less.  Well, something less: I
>>>> still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Quite honestly because the power and usefulness of the statement
> is significantly reduced by voting Yes.
>
> "Bobby, your mom and I have serious reservations about how well
>  you are doing in school following your refusal to provide us
>  with your grades."

"But Dad, you've never asked me for the grades.  As a matter of fact,  
I overheard you and mom planning to decide about asking for grades  
tomorrow..."

> You have not responded to our requests about
>  this subject and therefore your mom and I are currently in the
>  process of formulating a new policy towards your school work
>  and your curfew. Since the policy has not yet been finalized we
>  reluctantly vote (yes|no|abstain) at this time on whether you
>  can go to Timmy's party."

"But Dad, you didn't ask about grades before.  You did ask if I smoke  
in the future, and I said I wouldn't. "

>
> Which vote would be more consistent with the intent
> of the statement?

I think that Dad shouldn't be voting if that's the basis for the  
decision.

>
>>>
>>>> Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more  
>>>> closely:
>>>>
>>>> "... The reference implementation will be
>>>> developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
>>>> TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
>>>> Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
>>>> progress."
>>>>
>>>> A few things to note.  First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
>>>> reference implementation.  Does that cause anybody here any  
>>>> concerns?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
>>> then this could be a major concern, imo.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> define: entirely
>   "without any others being included or involved"

Why is it a major concern to the ASF how the RI for a spec we aren't  
leading is developed? (and one that we want to vote "NO" on...)

They took their marbles and went home.  They were free to do that.   
Why would the ASF get upset?  Sun's way of doing open source is  
different than ours.  I can't see why we'd have an official opinion.

geir


Mime
View raw message