Folks, this is a -dev list. There are any number of opinion forums elsewhere where you'll get a broader interest in your point of view.
Let's talk code. Tim Endre Stølsvik wrote: > | > | I'm not sure how to answer this. I believe you are a little confused about > | how the JCP works and what we're doing here, and people are asking for. > | > | First, we aren't advocating changes in the way Java SE specification is > | defined. > > So you still want the JCP? Run by Sun? Or by who? > > | > | Second, the Java SE specification - the 'standard' you refer to - is already > | defined by multiple companies and individuals that work on the Java SE > | specification Expert Group, of which Sun is the Spec Lead. > > Hm.. I haven't quite come to see it that way: If you read some of the > blogs and whatnots on the Mustang pages: "Today I added this method, oh > yes!" and "Well, we whipped up this thing five minutes ago!". I don't > think a new method in java.lang.String is discussed back and forth in the > JCP before some Sun guy just makes it. > But I might just be mistaken. > > | > | That's an orthogonal issue, independent of implementation of specifications. > > I don't think so, and I guess that's where I feel something is lacking in > many comments I read around in the java communities: "oh my god, like, > open source java NOW, dummies!", while not thinking about the processes > behind the different scenes. > > | > | In fact, it's clear to me that OSS in Java EE has had a very positive effect > | on both evolving the spec for users (i.e. the Spring and Hibernate influence > | on Java EE/EJB3) as well as making the technology available to end-users at > a > | faster pace. > > I didn't know that there was that big a difference between EE and SE > regarding licensing / open source, so obviously I have missed out on some > points here.. Do you have any good links laying around? > > | > | What's the "Swing issue"? > > The "missing TCK trick": > http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/2006/05/what_sun_doesnt.html > > I read that in this thread, and have heard it mentioned before: The GUI > parts of "java standards" are a somewhat convoluted area. > > | > | > > | > PS: How do you folks feel about Tiger's development model? > | > | Do you mean Mustang via "Project Peabody"? > > *blush*, obviously! > > | I like the community aspect - it was a great step forward for Sun - and > | could be improved by adding committers from other companies and making > | the code available under an open source license. > > Yes, that's what I think too - I really don't see the big difference > between that and e.g. Tomcat. Go suggest some feature or submit some code > to Tomcat - and be sure that not everything is immediately accepted into > the codebase. The only difference is basically that you cannot fork the > Sun JDK. (And that Sun just suddenly may change their mind in the future - > but so can a open source project, in particular the new "try before you > buy"-style uses of the GPL, where the copyright for all code is retained > by one particular company.). > > But this is also the place where I find the comments about "today I rammed > in this new little method - whaddayouthink?". Proving, to me at least, > that Sun's developers have direct access to the CVS, while the rest of the > world doesn't. Which I don't find that bad, as long as they pour lots of > money over the process, w/o asking for much back! > > It could obviously still be improved - I guess they should listen a little > more, be more accepting, whatever - get "a real community" going. But > that's so much hassle! ;) > > | > | > > | > PPS: Why does Sun really bother to pour money into Java at all? The > reason, > | > I've come to understand, _was_ that they then could sell a bunch of their > | > big-iron boxes to companies when the small intel-servers couldn't cope > with > | > a success of their developed java code. That argument is gone some years > ago > | > - so what's really in it for Sun, other than prestige? > | > | To be frank, IMO it's leverage over a major control point in the software > | industry, which doesn't need to change if they OSS their implementation. > > Yes, and they made this rather wonderful thing. Don't they deserve _some_ > particular _influence_ over it still? Really, I'm kinda sad that Sun > doesn't earn plenty-o-cash, given what they've given to the OSS scene and > the brave thing they did when CPU's still were named with numbers, and the > gigahertz could be counted on your digits: a new, friendly OO language, > Java, on a radically new platform-independent platform (!), the JVM. And > they've even tried to put some barriers in the road for total MS > domination - which apparently have backfired or not worked out very well.. > > But, open source the _implementation_, and keep the JCP as it is, with Sun > having a special position? > > Regards, > Endre. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
