www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Thomas" <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JSR 275 - I would like to vote no
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:55:20 GMT
Geir,

I haven't had a chance to read the spec but your concerns seem reasonable to me. Equating
mass and weight worries me, as does a lack of support for time.

I have no issue with with you voting no.

Mark

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
> To: jcp-open@apache.org
> Sent: 25/01/10, 10:38:39
> Subject: Re: JSR 275 - I would like to vote no
> 
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> 
> > Hi Geir,
> > 
> > I am not currently working with the problem domain touched by this JSR, although
I have some science background (a degree in chemistry) and understand exactly where the need
for this is coming from.
> 
> me too.  I'm also/was a physicist, which is why some of this stuff rubbed me the wrong
way (Mass isn't weight, for example...)
> 
> > One day is not enough time to evaluate its technical merit, but what I DON'T like
is seeing the JRE standard library expand adding yet another package ("javax.measure") that
is too specialized.
> 
> Yes
> 
> > 
> > Could you clarify something in this regard. Say this JSR goes final. Does it automatically
become a part of J2SE, or is it possible for it to exist as a standalone package, and who
defines each of the outcomes?
> 
> It is not automatically a part of J2SE, but it will be *very* difficult to replace once
it "owns" the units/measure space, and to me, this is somewhat fundamental.
> 
> > 
> > I'd be -1 for the former and +1 for the later (unless I overlooked some other warning
signs in the API). I.e. this may (or may not) turn out to be a fine library for scientists,
but let's not put it in the JRE.
> 
> So of the problems, there is no time and date in this, and there should be.  There are
oddities like constants in interfaces, things are named strangely, it's been argued that the
API doesn't play well with existing APIs, etc.
> 
> If you look at the initial vote : 
> 
> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=3216
> 
> You'll see plenty of concerns and a real honest intent that rather than run to standardization,
they EG was encouraged to get broad input, and create an implementation and USE IT in running
code for real scientific and other workloads to see if it really works....
> 
> geir
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Andrus
> > 
> > On Jan 25, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> JSR 275 is a "Unit Specification" JSR.  I've seen two presentations on the spec,
and I'm not comfortable at a technical level that this is on the right track.
> >> 
> >> However, I represent the ASF (and not me), so I'd like some feedback on the
spec - talk me out of it if you want :)
> >> 
> >> Sorry about the short timeframe - I have to vote tonight...
> >> 
> >> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=275
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message