Discussions

News: JCP Seeking your input with JCP Survey

  1. JCP Seeking your input with JCP Survey (16 messages)

    <marketing plug ahead!>
    This is your chance to tell us what you like and don't like about the JCP. For the next couple of weeks we're running a survey to gather input. You can participate here: http://63.170.131.3/surveys/jcpsurvey.htm
    </marketing plug ahead!>

    With kind regards,
    Onno Kluyt
    Director, JCP Program Office
    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
  2. This is your chance to tell us what you like and don't like about the JCP. For

    > the next couple of weeks we're running a survey to gather input. You can
    > participate here

     Onno why not use the chance and clear up some issues about the JCP that come up repeatedly but always stay unanswered?

      Why not show that your marketing plug is more than a publicity stunt and start a dialogue?

      Allow me to ask three question to get the discussion started:

      * Can you explain what Sun means by community as in Java "community" Process?

      * Can you explain how NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) foster "community" spirit?

      * Can you explain how fair it is that all IP (intellectual property) ends up in Sun's portfolio and how this matches with Sun's "community" talk.

      - Gerald
  3. +1


    Also,

    - is JCP to be Vendor dominated?

    .V
  4. Merriam Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) says:

    Main Entry: com·mu·ni·ty
    Usage: often attributive
    Etymology: Middle English comunete, from Middle French comuneté, from Latin communitat-, communitas, from communis
    Date: 14th century
    ----
    1 : a unified body of individuals: as
    a : STATE, COMMONWEALTH
    b : the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly : the area itself {the problems of a large community}
    c : an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location
    d : a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society {a community of retired persons}
    e : a group linked by a common policy
    f : a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests {the international community}
    g : a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society {the academic community}
    2 : society at large
    3 a : joint ownership or participation {community of goods}
    b : common character : LIKENESS {community of interests}
    c : social activity : FELLOWSHIP
    d : a social state or condition
    ---

    so, does "community == open source community" hold, in each and every case? is the constitution for a "community" automatically defined by the FSF?

    cheers
    joe
  5. How about empire?[ Go to top ]

    Joachim allow me to quote the entry about "empire" from the Merriam Webster Online:

    Main Entry: em·pire
    Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
    Date: 14th century
    1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
    2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

    Don't you think that's closer to the truth?

    - Gerald
  6. How about Cartel?[ Go to top ]

    Joachim allow me to quote as a bonus the entry about "cartel" from the Merriam Webster Online:

    Main Entry: car·tel
    Pronunciation: kär-'tel
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French, letter of defiance, from Old Italian cartello, literally, placard, from carta leaf of paper -- more at CARD
    Date: 1692
    1 : a written agreement between belligerent nations
    2 : a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
    3 : a combination of political groups for common action

    Now, don't you think that quite hits the nail, eh?

      - Gerald
  7. Umm...just how does cartel apply then Gerald? I don't see them trying to limit competition or fix prices.

    1. You can go out and create a new computer language if you'd like...it can even be just like Java, you just can't call it Java. That doesn't sound very much like limiting competition. You can create all the APIs on the Java platform you like. Again, how is that limiting competition?

    2. Just how do they fix prices? That's a mystery to me.

    Sure, one can quote the dictionary but that doesn't make it true.

    -Mike
  8. For what its worth, the JCP has definitely done much more good than harm.

    Imagine a situation where it was just Sun and perhaps a couple of other bigwigs calling the shots. Now that would be really bad. And it isn't true to say that this is the case today.

    Take Doug Lea for example. Are you calling him a sanctioner of corporate monopolism or standards-killing profiteering as well? In fact, he's coming up for re-election, and they want him back.

    Is there a lot of politics behind each JSR? Sure there is.

    Do vendors try to "bend" JSRs to fit their needs? Maybe.

    Do the spec leads do all they ought to do? Maybe not.

    Should Sun step away from monopolizing so many seats on the committees? Now that Java is where it, it probably should.

    But you know what, more than anything else, it is the intent of the JCP is what draws the lines between the Java and .Net worlds.

    So, IMHO, the JCP is a good thing. And it's getting better.

    That's not to say there isn't a heck of a lot of room for improvement. However, damning it would help it improve either.

    Sandeep
  9. Exactly. Freakish paranoids damning the JCP sound to me like someone damning the constitution because it doesn't guarantee enough freedom. Sure, nothing's perfect, but in both cases, the thing being damned is actually far better than the alternative. The way to improve things is constructively, through useful dialogue, not by putting on your foil hat and Che Guevara t-shirt and sending out ridiculous messages at anything even remotely associated with your personal mission.
  10. Umm...just how does cartel apply then Gerald?

    > I don't see them trying to limit competition or fix prices.

    1. You can go out and create a new operating system if you'd like...it can even be just like Windows, you just can't call it Windows. That doesn't sound very much like limiting competition. You can create all the APIs on the Windows platform you like. Again, how is that limiting competition?
  11. Again, you're not making any sense[ Go to top ]

    And just what does that mean Gerald? How does that make Sun a "cartel"? Replacing Sun with Microsoft and repeating my assertion does not make your point...if anything it invalidates it.

    *sigh*
  12. JCP Seeking your input with JCP Survey[ Go to top ]

    Repost:
      * Can you explain how NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) foster "community" spirit?

      * Can you explain how fair it is that all IP (intellectual property) ends up in Sun's portfolio and how this matches with Sun's "community" talk?

    (note Sun's part in market here: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/04/10/java_servlet_engines.html )

    Will this continue to be Vendor dominated or do users have more voice? (M$ is real good at listening to users). Since the *Vendor Comity* ignores users... users ignore the vendor comity.

    So far, open source, open discussion and competition serves us well, ex: Pico, HiveMind, Hibernate, iBatis, Struts, Eclipse, Display Tag, etc (none have anything to do w/ Vendor Comity). These are built by people that use it, with community participation.

    Look at what happened with Portlet API and JCP's role to re-license open source. Or JCP not "licensing" jBoss EJB.


    .V
  13. JCP Seeking your input with JCP Survey[ Go to top ]

    Regarding EJB:

    <quote>
    Mapping standard: If you use CMP, and use multiple app servers, the mapping is totally different. Some people want to try to have some kind of base standard that would work as a default, and minimal information.

    Dynamic EJBQL: There was a hint that this will be in EJB 3.0.
    Would be nice to be able to run queries that return a data structure which spans multiple tables, without having to go to multiple entities. At the moment people use fast reader patterns to bypass EJB for this task
    </quote>

    The same mapping problem occurs with different JDO implementations - I believe that it is enough to have it there. Using Hibernate for persistence allows to have the same lightweight mapping descriptor in any J2EE container that you can think of, even without deployment descriptors and dedicated deployment steps. And persistence of lightweight objects, be it Hibernate-style POJOs or JDO PersistenceCapables, is preferable to using Entity Beans anyway - by far.

    So instead of making the EJB spec even larger than it is today (>600 pages) by adding even more fixes to the misguided Entity Beans and EJBQL, I'm all for deprecating Entity Beans completely, especially CMP. Compared to Hibernate or a decent JDO implementation, is there a single advantage of CMP? Personally, I'm convinced there isn't. And if you really need heavyweight components around your persistent objects, you can always add BMP wrappers for the latter.

    <quote>
    Interceptors: People really want to see these. Even the future (AOP) was mentioned.

    Deployment descriptor defaults: People would like to put in default values for the items that we always have to put into vendor specific files. For example, let us just put in the damn JNDI name, and <*-ref> end points etc etc.
    </quote>

    Let me note that the Spring Framework's bean configuration in combination with its AOP support allows for replacing the most important Local Stateless Session Bean service with an extremely lightweight solution: You can leverage declarative transactions with simple POJO beans that do not even have to be Spring-aware - they just have to implement some business interface!

    Adding custom interceptors to a Spring bean is very easy, and there isn't any need for a deployment descriptor because interoperation of multiple beans works via simple bean references instead of JNDI registrations.

    <quote>
    Transaction Timeout configuration: There are some times, when you know a certain operation needs a long tx timeout (as it will take awhile). Instead of having to drop to bean managed transactions, how about being able to use declaritive programming to set a longer timeout that the default for a particular method/bean.
    </quote>

    The Spring Framework's abstract transaction support allows for the full power of transaction definitions, including timeouts. It can be leveraged by templating, i.e. with a simple transaction callback implementation, or declaratively via Spring's AOP TransactionInterceptor.

    There are default implementations of Spring's PlatformTransactionManager SPI for JTA, JDO, Hibernate, and single JDBC DataSources. The latter two even support specifying custom isolation levels, via exactly the same high-level transaction demarcation mechanism!
  14. First of all, thanks for the praise :-) Let me just correct a detail:

    > Let me note that the Spring Framework's bean configuration in combination with its AOP support allows for replacing the most important Local Stateless Session Bean service with an extremely lightweight solution: You can leverage declarative transactions with simple POJO beans that do not even have to be Spring-aware - they just have to implement some business interface!

    As of Spring Framework 0.9.1 (and of course, 1.0 M1 and later), they don't even need to implement a business interface anymore - although it's recommended, but just as good programming practice. Spring will use CGLIB for AOP proxy creation if there's no interface specified. That means you can proxy (i.e. enhance with transactions etc) any POJO now, even if it doesn't implement a business interface, as long as the enhanced methods are not marked final.

    Juergen
    Spring Framework developer
    http://www.springframework.org
  15. JCP Seeking your input with JCP Survey[ Go to top ]

    First off congratulations to Jonas. I don't have a problem with Jonas getting the certification for free per se. It has been a valid effort, INRIA is a respectable house, even if a bit academic to my taste, I do congratulate them on the scolarship, at least they won't have to pay.

    I don't even have a problem with JBoss Group paying for certification, even if every dollar we spend on it are dollars we made with you guys as customers. As we repeatedly said we AGREED to pay SUN and are waiting on a contract. We are still waiting.

    As a note it should be clearly said, as for some reason SUN execs and some posts here think we sell the product, THE PRODUCT IS FREE (LGPL) always will be.

    Which leads me to 2 scenarios,

    <normal> SUN launched the 'scolarship' clearly as a Open Source branded effort with apache on stage for that announcement etc. I remember the "OS diva" (name escapes me right now, apologies) telling me that was good for JBoss etc and that we would get it. Even back then I knew intuitively it was boloney, a reaction to IBM land-grabbing open source and a rushed program, ill thought out imho. Bygones.

    The whole non-profit definition leads to non-sensical results with respect to the open source positioning, namely that the open source developers would pay while the french government would get it for free. It is a fact today. The scolarship is a 'non-profit' program and as is very clear to us, we believe there is a viable future for professional open source. The scolarship *if it wanted to be open source* should base the definition on licenses. OSI approved licenses, not non-profit status. Open source is about licenses not non-profit.

    <paranoia>On the waiting for the contract for the past 2 months. SUN may be favoring redhat with jonas as the first to get PR for that announcement of 'scolarship'. I am supposed to meet the SUN folks this week in CA for an update on the way open source certification will work (for jonas and us). The paranoid in me thinks the PR 'thunder stealing' helps their friends more than anything. JBoss out of the gates with TCK would have been (still will be) a good PR story and we will get to talk about it here when it comes out ;)

    I may be totally wrong and it may all be the simple consequences of the non-sensical way the program is set up with respect to open source and SUN just walks through the moves, we were denied the scolarship.
    Next they make sure Jonas and us do the TCK right which is actually fair. We pay, the others don't pay, it is ok, it doesn't even put us at a disadvantage but the result is so not a 'open source' program. That to me it would warrant a back to the drawing board on the whole scolarship program.

    SUN is giving away TCK to large multi-billion for-profit companies, while the developers of JBoss Group pay. OK, we will pay and it sends a message to the market that we are viable and responsible in fact commercial in our support and a real company with money behind JBoss the FREE product.

    Professional Open Source is a real business model, Onward,
  16. JCP Seeking your input with JCP Survey[ Go to top ]

    Ah, so Race Condition has got to be either Fleury or Burke accidentally posting using their Masked Man account. Now many posts from the past on TSS makes sense, and I can see where they might think other companies have bogus psuedonyms here as well.

        -Mike
  17. Allow me to quote Onno from the story titled "Sun Branding Effort Angers Java Crowd" to shed some light on Sun's gigantic Java Cartel Process (JCP) ponzy scheme to fool the world Java is open.

    Here we go:

    Onno Kluyt, director of the JCP program management office at Sun, acknowledged the branding issue. "I do expect Sun's naming strategy to be discussed [at the meeting]," Kluyt said. However, he added, "the JCP itself does not own the brand; Sun owns the brand."

    Kluyt said the JCP elections will fill four ratified seats on the Micro Edition Executive Committee and on the Standard Edition/Enterprise Edition Executive Committee. Sun gets to nominate companies for both slots.

    For the Micro Edition committee, Sun has nominated Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Motorola Inc., Siemens AG and Vodafone Group plc. For the Standard Edition/Enterprise Edition committee, Sun has nominated Fujitsu Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM and Oracle Corp.


    Now let me summarize:

    * Sun owns the Java brand.
    * Sun nominates companies to the politburo (aka executive commitee) that later get "elected".
    * The JCP is not an independent (vendor-neutral) organization but just another Sun department headed by a full-time Sun employee.

    Any comments?