tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post7211124452590058745..comments2024-01-24T14:53:02.919+00:00Comments on Stephen Colebourne's blog: Java SE 7 passes in the zombie JCPStephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-35215446630160046802011-06-25T12:04:15.000+01:002011-06-25T12:04:15.000+01:00I have no problem at all with the current behavior...I have no problem at all with the current behavior of Oracle. Rather, I'm pleased that Apple and IBM has jumped on the train. And I won't shed a tear on the fact that Apache is a dead project now.<br /><br />Apache followed a very dangerous path when they followed IBM in it's try to overcome Java leadership. Maybe Google thought that Harmony would be the de facto standard when they used it for Android.<br /><br />It's seems that people (I'm not speaking specifically about pthis blog) are very happy about Google's dubious way of doing with Android, or Microsoft way of doing with .NET, but are never happy with how Sun, then Oracle did with Java.<br /><br />Please remind that Sun disappeared because they could not make enough money on their business, including Java, while others (say IBM, Google) made a LOT of money on what Sun invented while giving nothing in return<br /><br />So I have no problem at all with the attitude of Oracle. The state of development of Java is much much more open than how Android is managed by Google, mostly under closed doors. Go to OpenJDK site, and see how development is made in the open. ON tnhe other hand, I would really want to know wnhat's going on with Harmony now, on about how Google is doing with their own implementation for >Android, because it's VERY opaque.Herve Girodhttp://incanusonrails.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-79331067486816012122011-06-10T20:55:06.000+01:002011-06-10T20:55:06.000+01:00Hi Stephen,
Thanks for reminding us of the balanc...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Thanks for reminding us of the balance that we need to strike. Representing such a diverse group as the LJC is a real challenge - I would say more so than representing a corporate entity - because we have to represent a rough consensus of the view of our 2000ish members and don't have a corporate hierarchy to dictate our position for us. <br /><br />Getting a view on that many different perspectives is tricky - and that's why the members of the JCP committee need to spend a lot of time talking to people to find out their views and then work out what a representative and reasonable synthesis of them should be. That's not perfect as a sampling technique - but it's what we have in place right now. <br /><br />We're always interested in our members views, and suggestions for how we can improve and better represent our community. This is a learning exercise for us too, and we certainly don't claim to have all the answers! <br /><br />This is also a great reminder - I have half a blogpost about how we're working within the JCP - I must find some time over this weekend to dust it off and get it out there. <br /><br />To return to your original point: Given that as the LJC we need to be a unified voice in the JCP Exec Committee - how would you like to see us express our understanding of the community's view in forums such as this blog? What are we doing right, and what can we do better at?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />BenBen Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-46286058104287025532011-06-10T20:40:58.000+01:002011-06-10T20:40:58.000+01:00Hi Stephen S,
You're quite right, I didn'...Hi Stephen S,<br /><br />You're quite right, I didn't qualify that statement correctly! I'm new at this and am still very much learning how to balance and phrase things accurately.<br /><br />Please once more accept my aplogies.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />MartijnMartijn Verburgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-50964655696343566142011-06-10T09:54:54.000+01:002011-06-10T09:54:54.000+01:00As a member of the LJC (though not on any committe...As a member of the LJC (though not on any committee) I would prefer it if Martijn et al qualified their comments on public forums such as this blog.<br /><br />Statements beginning with, "the LJC strongly believes" imply that some sort of survey has been taken to establish popular opinion.<br /><br />I like seeing statements of facts and really appreciate the transparency that this blog brings to the history of the JCP.<br /><br />Of course this is just my opinion.<br /><br />:)Stephen Sounessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-50431736616613000582011-06-09T11:19:21.000+01:002011-06-09T11:19:21.000+01:00Stephen & Matthias - I appreciate that YMMV, b...Stephen & Matthias - I appreciate that YMMV, but the LJC strongly believes that JCP.next (as represented by JSR 348) is actually a significant and important JSR in its own right as well as being a positive start. The JCP (and some JSRs) has lacked openness and transparency in the past, which has certainly hindered many standardisation efforts.<br /><br />In particular, the LJC has noticed that the 'Java developer on the street' knows very little about the JCP or JSRs (if they've heard of them at all!). JSR 348 is an important base to start from so that Java developers can get directly involved and help shape really great standards.<br /><br />I'll note that Oracle did submit this JSR, a welcome and positive move from them :)<br /><br />JSR 348 is being conducted transparently, in the open.<br /><br />It is our intention to ensure that all JSRs which are created during our term are done in an as open a manner as possible. We welcome your feedback and input into this process - especially if it takes the form of constructive criticism or suggestions about where best to spend our attention.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Martijn & Ben (on behalf of LJC JCP committee)Martijn Verburghttp://martijnverburg@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-67989922813680976672011-06-09T09:31:33.000+01:002011-06-09T09:31:33.000+01:00@Matthias, Yes Oracle is investing lots in Java, a...@Matthias, Yes Oracle is investing lots in Java, and thats a good thing. JCP.next has a few tweaks, nothing important.<br /><br />@Anthony, I became the unoffical documenter of this sad story, so I have to complete the documentation. Its still a real issue, because its at the heart of the Oracle Google lawsuit. Oh, and I take it you'd be happy to only have Glassfish in Java EE, and no Geronimo, JBoss, Websphere...? The point of the JCP is to be a standards body allowing multiple competing implementations!Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-45960759503089380992011-06-09T08:33:23.000+01:002011-06-09T08:33:23.000+01:00No offense, but: what drives you to write all thes...No offense, but: what drives you to write all these blog posts? Oracle 's finally moving Java forward again, yet some people can't stop complaining about this TCK issue. What was the added value of Apache Harmony anyway?<br />The problem with Google is that they 're breaking the "write once, run anywhere" Java slogan.<br />Oracle brought IBM & Apple to the OpenJDK & is moving Java forward on all fronts. Maybe I 'm naive, but Java 's future seems bright to me.Anthonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-38485097176859935382011-06-08T21:04:22.000+01:002011-06-08T21:04:22.000+01:00@Stephen:
Oracle did some good thinks (java is mov...@Stephen:<br />Oracle did some good thinks (java is moving for example). So maybe, just maybe, JCP.next really gets something going? They screwed OpenOffice up, maybe they learned...Matthiasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-78209863350113377132011-06-08T12:59:12.000+01:002011-06-08T12:59:12.000+01:00@Sandeep, @Olexandr, IMO any project trying to for...@Sandeep, @Olexandr, IMO any project trying to fork Java or write an alternate version is likely to be disappointed. Oracle has made it pretty clear that they won't tolerate any other kind of Java (and Google is their target on this). Its time for Java developers to recognise that they live at the whim of Oracle and the "Java trap" is absolute.<br /><br />@Martijn, I widh the LJC, SouJava and others well on the JCP. But unless you can get the JCP split into two parts, one with specs that can be implemented and one with specs that can't then frankly the JCP isn't of much interest to me. ( (ie. rewrite the JSPA legal agreement so it isn't being broken by Oracle). Bear in mind that right now even Oracle just sees it as a tool rather than anything to pay attention to, see your Java SE 7 comments.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-89487011949018056072011-06-08T07:29:22.000+01:002011-06-08T07:29:22.000+01:00You can't effect control from inside when Orac...You can't effect control from inside when Oracle have already said they don't care what the JCP says. Nieve.Neil Stocktonhttp://www.nonofyourbusiness.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-31590633936399996022011-06-07T20:08:51.000+01:002011-06-07T20:08:51.000+01:00Almost year ago the was some plans to do Lava - Op...Almost year ago the was some plans to do Lava - OpenJDK fork in order to get JDK TCK<br />and make Lava TCK compatible with Java TCK but w/o stupid FOU restriction.<br />What do you know or think? Is there any hope?Olexandr Demurahttp://arumad.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-29582839451520055562011-06-07T16:17:48.000+01:002011-06-07T16:17:48.000+01:00Honestly I think it's just as bad that these J...Honestly I think it's just as bad that these JCP members vote yes but comment like they give a damn. The reality is they want to stay in Oracle's good graces so it doesn't affect their bottom line. To me it is sad companies like Redhat didn't back up ASF with action instead of words.sulfidenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-8979551663078879512011-06-07T16:07:55.000+01:002011-06-07T16:07:55.000+01:00@Sandeep in particular.
Licensing and transparenc...@Sandeep in particular.<br /><br />Licensing and transparency issues will be at the for of the JCP.next discussion. JSR 348 will address transparency and a (hopefully near) future JSR will start the discussion on the JSPA.<br /><br />We disagree that the JCP is "zombie" and irrelevant. We don't think it is, and this is why we stood for the JCP EC, so that we could effect change from the inside working with Oracle et al. <br /><br />What can you do? Join SouJava or the LJC (or one of the other JCP EC members whose statements you agree with) and help them promote change!<br /><br />Martijn (on behalf of the LJC)Martijn Verburghttp://martijnverburg@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-47336097702113889532011-06-07T13:13:28.000+01:002011-06-07T13:13:28.000+01:00Thanks for posting these updates about the process...Thanks for posting these updates about the process all this time. I am saddened by the results.Jaap Beetstranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-23827048463082640142011-06-07T13:08:11.000+01:002011-06-07T13:08:11.000+01:00As an active Java developer for whom Java has been...As an active Java developer for whom Java has been more than a language, it feels painful the way Oracle has started tightening its control over the domain, much in the walled-garden approach of Apple.<br /><br />But is there something we (community developers) can do other than sit quietly and watch doom? :(Sandeep Guptahttp://blog.sangupta.comnoreply@blogger.com