7 Comments

  1. Reza Rahman
    01/06/2011 @ 5:18 pm

    Good work guys – keep it up!

    Reply

  2. javajoe
    01/06/2011 @ 10:05 pm

    I would hope that every single Java 8 JSR is run under the new forth coming rules. If not, we will see another 3 year cycle of what we currently have. While Oracle claims great community participation with JSR’s like project coin you only have to visit the mailing list to find out how this is far from the truth. People are still waiting for the “private mailing lists” [1] to be published so they can provide feedback. But in light of Java SE 7 shipping real soon what really could be done with community feedback? Why were such deliberations conducted in private? Why claim this huge community success story when there was none (even on the selection of
    these language changes!!)? The lamba JSR for Java 8 is no different. They have made some progress and some major decisions but there is not even an expert group yet! Even JavaFx 2.0 which will be released in Q3 has made decisions on how they know/perceive lambda will be designed (use of single abstract classes) . What happens if the expert group decides that single abstract class is not the way to go? Maybe they decide that function types are a much better design decision. The problem here is that the community is being left out .. what Oracle seems to want is people to doing the QA.

    This is were I hope the JUGS can make a difference.

    [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2011-May/003269.html

    Reply

    • Werner Keil
      02/06/2011 @ 3:25 pm

      There’s an EG for the Lambda JSR, but most of the SE JSRs unfortunately lack the transparency you can see practiced in other areas like many good EE examples (JSF, JPA and those lead by Red Hat)

      Being the only Individual Member on SE/EE I am the 3rd representative of the community beside the two JUGs. All providing a wider set of ideas and thoughts beyond the narrow borders of Silicon Valley or at least United States, where most other (SE/EE) EC members are based.

      Reply

      • karianna01
        02/06/2011 @ 5:55 pm

        Hi Werner Keil, apologies for the oversight in not mentioning you as the 3rd community representative. That was remiss of us. Look forward to working with you on more open reform!

        Reply

  3. Sean Sheedy
    03/06/2011 @ 5:13 pm

    Thank you for posting this. The JCP ECs need strong, vocal members who are in touch with the developer community, to represent its needs and provide balance and perspective to corporate interests.

    JSR 348 is only the first of two JSRs addressing governance changes. It was decided early on (before you joined) in the Working Group/EC to divide the work into two JSRs. This was so that reforms that could be agreed up would not be held up by debate and possible stalemate over more contentious changes.

    This means that 348 is unlikely to address the issues that led to the departures of Doug Lea, Tim Peierls, and Apache. It doesn’t mean 348 is watered down; in Seoul we spoke about completing this JSR aggressively to put much needed election reforms and other reforms in place before the next JCP election takes place.

    It does mean that the more difficult issues could be sufficiently contentious that the second JSR might never complete. This is where your informed judgement of what would best serve individual developers is going to be very important.

    You enter an EC where key EC members who felt very strongly that Java standards should be unencumbered have recently departed, leaving a lack of representation of that perspective. It is currently an EC where most of the corporations that supported this stance have somehow been placated and are no longer raising this issue.

    The question becomes, where will you stand when these issues resurface during the second JSR. Oracle’s position here is clear and it appears that the majority (but not all) of the current EC seems willing to accept it. How this might play out in today’s EC would make this comment far longer than it already is.

    So, in a way it is a good thing that the first JSR (348) will be an “easy” JSR. It’s going to be short enough to not delay discussion of the difficult issues too much longer, and long enough to allow time for understanding the dynamics behind these issues that being on the EC will help provide. That you’re already starting this discussion with the community is great news for all of us. Thank you for that.

    Reply

  4. Java SE 7 Vote « London Java Community Blog
    11/06/2011 @ 10:01 am

    […] a blog post about it here: http://londonjavacommunity.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/the-jcp-reform-and-what-it-means-for-the-java-de… if you missed the announcement and would like to find out more about what all of this […]

    Reply

  5. Antti Virtanen
    16/06/2011 @ 8:48 am

    As for the discussions and workgroups on some JSR’s being private or semi-.private, one must consider that not all feedback is useful or constructive. It is ofcourse nice if joining is easy provided you have something valuable to contribute. It is also a good thing to be able to see what people are working on.

    Many Java developers have strong opinions about closures and lambdas and many other things, but flooding the JSR mailing lists with all of these opinions would mean very poor signal/noise ratio and thus would nullify the purpose of the mailing list.

    Looking forward to what this move means for the progress and future of Java.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × 3 =