On 03/04/17 21:56, John Rose wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Alan, it is exactly this kind of comment from the team which just
>> tears apart the whole view that you might actually be considering
>> what everyone in the Java community needs.
>
> I think *this* comment is unfair to Alan. I read Alan as saying
> "don't assume that users can rely on an SM present". If I'm right,
> that is a far cry from tearing the community into parts. I think
> you would admit that not everyone uses SM. So you didn't ding Alan
> (who is doing really heroic work for the community) for simply
> reminding us that a SM-based approach would not serve the whole
> community equally. Did you impute some other motive to him?
Thank you for posting this, John. I am hoping that Gregg simply misread
Alan's post because it definitely didn't merit the response it received.
More generally, it certainly doesn't help anyone when constructive
comments made by OpenJDK developers garner inattentive criticisms that
fail to allow for honest intentions and/or acknowledge different and,
potentially, competing needs. It's especially unfair to apply such
criticism to Alan who for months has been extraordinarily diligent in
investigating, considering and responding to those many competing needs.
The same praise is due to many others in Oracle's OpenJDK team --
consider, for example, the highly valuable, longstanding efforts of the
EA program team to identify and fix problems before JDK9 gets released.
Oracle have been working very hard to ensure JDK9 is a success and to
suggest otherwise is as misguided as it is unhelpful. This project would
be in a dire state without the contributions of Oracle staff and I for
one appreciate their contribution enormously.
regards,
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
