Skip to main content

Which proposed JCP change is most important to you?

Optimizing duration of JSR's
23% (54 votes)
Improving involvement of individuals
25% (60 votes)
Allowing non-Java implementations of JSR specifications
7% (17 votes)
Ability to create liaisons with other standards organizations
6% (13 votes)
Easing migration of existing technologies into standards
19% (44 votes)
Making TCK and licensing info available upon completion of a JSR
6% (14 votes)
Something else (please comment)
1% (3 votes)
Nothing in JSR-306 is important to me
13% (31 votes)
Total votes: 236

Comments

More transparency needed

+1

I was kinda hoping to see the #306 duscussion happening in the open, but so far I haven't noticed a link to discussion archives anywhere yet. Onno, any idea if it'll stay that way?

FWIW, It's reassuring that contributors to the JDK see the transparency and participation issues same way as independant VM developers do, and it's particularly reassuring that the review ballot passed without any No votes.

Joining the JCP is too hard

My biggest gripe is that it is too hard for an individual to join the JCP. The website and legal documents appear to go out of their way to make it difficult. IIRC, Sun committed to make it easier years ago, but nothing ever changed. The impact of this is that I've spent the last 6 weeks trying to get my company to allow me to be signed up, but without getting anywhere. Its enough to make me not want to bother improving Java.

Migrate existing projects...

The JCP should spend most of its time evaluating which existing OSS framework/project is best and what may need to be contributed to that project to saticfy any JCP member concerns -- even forking if required. But re-creating the same conceptual framework in an slightly "improved" yet incompatible way is lame and just smacks of NIH syndrome. Examples of things that should be JCP accepted "standards": Spring & Spring MVC Struts Velocity apache-commons stuff -Bryan

Migrate existing projects...

Why does the JCP stamp matter? Do you want multiple implementations, a stamp of approval for the boss, acknowledgment of work well done, more complete documentation and specification, or the avoidance of duplicating the functionality in Java [SE]E core? Or is it something else? What is the overriding compelling value to JCP standards? (Not trying to be a troll here. Just trying to raise an honest analysis.)

Migrate existing projects...

+1

Migrate existing projects...

I think a large part of what 'matters' is that specifications developed under the JCP get to involve a broader field of experts and experience, and enjoy a more thorough and formal review process, than perhaps some independent projects.

This hopefully leads to more fully considered specifications which people have more confidence in, balance a broader set of needs, and better stand the test of time.

Of course, there are notable exceptions, because nothing is perfect.

Migrate existing projects...

+1