tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post7395607348986002653..comments2024-01-24T14:53:02.919+00:00Comments on Stephen Colebourne's blog: Split JCP: a compromise proposalStephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-70360420732996398892010-10-28T16:51:25.000+01:002010-10-28T16:51:25.000+01:00Some of these sentiments are what I was trying to ...Some of these sentiments are what I was trying to point out on the jcp-general discussion group ( http://wiki.jcp.org/boards/index.php?t=5378 ).<br /><br />Basically why have implementations (RI and TCK) as part of a standard. No other standard body does so. <br /><br />I would go so far as to say have the spec (maybe including interface definitions as part of the spec) and maybe a test/verification spec. Decouple the specs from the implementations. <br /><br />I know this means more documentations and an extra step but this is a good common ground to develop the requirements of the JSR minus the implementation. <br /><br />You might still have to deal with patent concerns, but I think an algorithm included in a spec might still fall under a patentable realm.EricBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-73484707600961353912010-10-18T10:01:14.000+01:002010-10-18T10:01:14.000+01:00Excellent post,
below are my additions
One,
For n...Excellent post,<br />below are my additions<br /><br />One,<br />For now, An absolutely correct resolution as java(jvm) is proprietary unlike c language (so either we must bought it from oracle and do whatever we want otherwise oblige the terms of vender as always is the case.)<br /><br />Two,<br />Side by side, we need to form a new open CLR specification body like www.khronos.org (OpenCL) and www.osgi.org (OSGI),<br />This body should produce a multi hardware platform, single but moduler CLR specification + specialized and general purpose languages on top of it.<br /><br />form a new proper implementation company with paid staff like any other regular IT product company.<br /><br />Funding/Sponsorship, We need to think who need these specifications and solutions open source and free...who is the user ?<br />It is every industry/company who uses IT.<br />Ultimately they will get the freedom of portability, longevity, cheaper and efficient solution, cloud like security so to reap the benefit they need to fund it.<br />As some central body is present in every country for banking, funded by citizens tax through governments.<br />IT companies need to discuss it with clients and set aside x percentage of every project to be contributed to specification body and implementation company.<br /><br />P.S.<br />Being a programmer for me any solution proprietary or open source or free are alike as I get paid by time spent (hour) only not for java is free or c# is paid, i just assemble/maintain a solution and move on to another project. it is the client ultimately who needs delphi over cobol, java over c++, c# over vb and pays huge porting or legacy maintenance fees.<br />If one language is inefficient, clients ends up paying more on hardware and electricity.<br />If one language lacks some features it is client who ends up with semi solution or overpriced project.<br />If one language lacks some liabrary it is client who ends up purchasing from third party if available.<br />If one language is not portable, it is client who gets lock in.<br />if one proprietary language dies (powerbuilder, delphi) it is client who drag the legacy.<br />and so on...i am mere an solution assembler it is client who decides the budget, time, language, server, hardware.<br />moral: it is between customers and their heavyweight venders (oracle weblogic, ibm websphere) or open source venders (struts, ant), I am to just build whatever my client asks (they have most of the things already fixed).<br />that is it so until unless customers do not move to customers funded specs body and customers funded ASF the story remains the same in varying configutration.Pradeep Jindalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-54377029345625885082010-10-15T13:29:25.000+01:002010-10-15T13:29:25.000+01:00Great to see a balanced proposal aimed at moving f...Great to see a balanced proposal aimed at moving forward and leaving the past behind. It'd be interesting to see Oracle's reaction.Bharath.Rhttp://infinitescale.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-64839354503515677672010-10-15T10:18:26.000+01:002010-10-15T10:18:26.000+01:00Geir, its a concept that I've been trying to g...Geir, its a concept that I've been trying to get listened to for some time (and have promoted privately for some considerable time). Recent discussions have simply reminded me to make it public. It is good to hear that it is "worth pondering".<br /><br />Niall, that depends on what motivations you ascribe to Oracle. I'm taking the view that Oracle wants to control the core, but is aware that they need a fair and balanced ecosystem too. Compromise requires stepping outside the comfort zone.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-4914237235100052602010-10-15T03:24:13.000+01:002010-10-15T03:24:13.000+01:00If Oracle doesn't honour Sun's original ag...If Oracle doesn't honour Sun's original agreement with the ASF, how can they be trusted with whatever reorganisation they do with the JCP? Thats the fundamental flaw in your compromise.niallpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-40822836573648893892010-10-15T03:03:07.000+01:002010-10-15T03:03:07.000+01:00What a coincidence - I sent the same idea for disc...What a coincidence - I sent the same idea for discussion to the internal Apache member's list at 10:48 BST.<br /><br />I also discussed it w/ a few EC members earlier today as well.<br /><br />I think it's worth pondering, obviously.Geir Mangnusson Jrnoreply@blogger.com