I realize this isn't perfect. In some cases, it's not even good, the
servlet EG sound like it belongs in the 'not good' category. I think
we'd all like to see things changed so that there's a more open
process for spec development, and there is a lot of interest on the
JCP Exec Committee
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 17/3/03 1:24 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that there's been problem with the Servlet EG this time
around,
but what I'm saying is that there are avenues that we _could_ have
used to voice our concerns, but we
On 18/3/03 11:33 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 17/3/03 1:24 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that there's been problem with the Servlet EG this time
around,
but what I'm saying is that there
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 18/3/03 11:33 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 17/3/03 1:24 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that there's been problem with the Servlet EG this time
around,
but what I'm saying
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 03:08 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 18/3/03 11:33 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 17/3/03 1:24 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that there's been problem with the Servlet EG
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:20, Hans Bergsten wrote:
The NDA in the JCP agreement only applies to confidential
information. After a public draft has been published, the info it
contains is no longer confidential.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of information that may not make it into the
public
On 12/3/03 6:53 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 10:58 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
As it turns out, there is substantial room for innovation and debate in
the implementation of API specs like servlet and JSP (see the history
of
Tomcat
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 12/3/03 6:53 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 10:58 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
As it turns out, there is substantial room for innovation and debate in
the implementation of API specs like servlet and JSP (see the history
of
On 16/3/03 20:20 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir, I _really_ am in troubles when dealing with Servlets. I cannot raise
issues on the tomcat-dev mailing lists, all I can do is discuss them with
Jon and Jason, as they both are on the spec...
You can raise and discuss your
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 02:53 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 12/3/03 6:53 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 10:58 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
As it turns out, there is substantial room for innovation and debate
in
the implementation of API specs
On 16/3/03 23:32 Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I *think* that you should be able to discuss the issues with any
ASF member, if you are representing the ASF on the EG, not just other
EG members. We all are bound by the agreements made by the ASF.
In fact I post my concerns
| As you are on the EG yourself, you know how hard it is to have one word
| removed from the next revision of the spec once it gets in :-)
|
| Just thinking out loud...
|
| Pier
When a culture of discussion comes into conflict with a culture of
bureaucracy, debate is not an optimal change
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 16/3/03 20:20 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir, I _really_ am in troubles when dealing with Servlets. I cannot raise
issues on the tomcat-dev mailing lists, all I can do is discuss them with
Jon and Jason, as they both are on the spec...
You can raise and
On 17/3/03 1:24 Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that there's been problem with the Servlet EG this time around,
but what I'm saying is that there are avenues that we _could_ have
used to voice our concerns, but we didn't for some reason. There are a
number of mailing lists and
And I don't have the privilege of speaking with Sun's lawyers?
Just don't return their calls.
And when I'm fined and held for contempt of court will you be there with me?
-Andy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 08:52 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
And I don't have the privilege of speaking with Sun's lawyers?
Just don't return their calls.
And when I'm fined and held for contempt of court will you be there
with me?
I had to go back and look at what I had responded to.
Previously:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Lets talk about what a great thing the portlet specification
committee has done for the Jetspeed project.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Yes, lets do that. (That's 1 out of 200 or so, so while there may be
a problem with that specific JSR, we might have to
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 03:05 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:
Previously:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Lets talk about what a great thing the portlet specification
committee has done for the Jetspeed project.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Yes, lets do that. (That's 1 out of 200 or so, so while
Any set of interactions among people with common interests (incl. NDAs)
creates a community. Those within may debate values or objectives, but
a community only becomes real via the experiences of *external* people,
That would be awesome. A community of people who are bound by NDAs and
One way we can do this is for ourselves to do be spec leads for
JSR's. Then we can set the rules for the group, and the license.
Jetspeed has been around for a while - it was only recently that IBM
(and ?) proposed the JSR. We could have done it long before that.
What if later we want to
Well - that's one way to describe it. The other way is
that the JCP
is how innovations are brought to the platform - the innovation was
done before you tried to make a JSR. For example, Jason Hunter is
running a JSR for JDOM. JDOM was done, and the benefits of the
software
Either a community
a) doesn't want to, in which case it doesn't matter how the Evil
Tyrannical Sun That Controls All behaves or
b) it does, but only as a participant on the EG (from which info can
be shared, I suppose - certainly something that can be negotiated
with the leads on the JSR),
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
What if later we want to do a .NET portlet or a (whatever comes along
that is against Sun's interest) portlet spec?
I think Sun's NDA is not that bad (but I don't want to re-read it to
check). Once the JSR gets public, there is no provision against free use
of what
What if later we want to do a .NET portlet or a (whatever comes along
that is against Sun's interest) portlet spec?
Call it portal.net and change the method names to begin with a capital
letter.
done.
-- Paulo
-
To
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 08:42 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
One way we can do this is for ourselves to do be spec leads for
JSR's. Then we can set the rules for the group, and the license.
Jetspeed has been around for a while - it was only recently that IBM
(and ?) proposed the JSR.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 09:02 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Either a community
a) doesn't want to, in which case it doesn't matter how the Evil
Tyrannical Sun That Controls All behaves or
b) it does, but only as a participant on the EG (from which info can
be shared, I suppose -
Paulo Silveira wrote:
What if later we want to do a .NET portlet or a (whatever comes along
that is against Sun's interest) portlet spec?
Call it portal.net and change the method names to begin with a capital
letter.
done.
And I don't have the privilege of speaking with Sun's lawyers?
d) Convince everyone that they don't need the silly JCP or JSRs and
just set the standards and be real damn clear that we mean to set the
de-facto standard while laughing at Ra. OpenSource is the standard.
Go for it.
I am...
-Andy
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 05:18 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Paulo Silveira wrote:
What if later we want to do a .NET portlet or a (whatever comes
along that is against Sun's interest) portlet spec?
Call it portal.net and change the method names to begin with a capital
letter.
done.
And I
I would simply like to point out WHO is the specification lead of JSR-127
(see http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=127), and who was the initial
author of Struts (see http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/volunteers.html)...
Apache's concerns were Considering Sun's current position that JSRs may
Note that Sun's JCP NDA agreements burn the second and third
completely. And possibly the first (though i'm not a big fan of long
standing deprecations.. ).
-Andy
Thanks Pier. I had wondered when someone would point this out.
Having clarity on the facts is very important, because all too
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:08 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Note that Sun's JCP NDA agreements burn the second and third
completely.
Utter nonsense. Are you saying that there's a dearth of innovation at
apache? Or that Apache doesn't support strong communities?
geir
And possibly the
No I'm saying that projects which some committers are bound by Sun's
NDAs and are on the specification commmittees do not
have meritocratic consensus based communities. The committers engaged
in the legal agreement with sun cannot talk to the other
committers about important decisions affecting
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:40 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
No I'm saying that projects which some committers are bound by Sun's
NDAs and are on the specification commmittees do not
have meritocratic consensus based communities.
Do you have any examples of this? You aren't confusing the
Do you have any examples of this? You aren't confusing the material I
submit to the ASF JCP group from the EC with whatever you are thinking
about, are you?
I do not subscribe to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list as I was informed that it
would bind me in the ASF's NDA agreements with Sun. (and I
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
have meritocratic consensus based communities. The committers engaged
in the legal agreement with sun cannot talk to the other
committers about important decisions affecting the project and secondly
the major decisions are made in the specification committee and
not
On 11/3/03 23:40 Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I'm saying that projects which some committers are bound by Sun's
NDAs and are on the specification commmittees do not
have meritocratic consensus based communities. The committers engaged
in the legal agreement with sun cannot
Thanks Pier. Thats a great perpective. Lets have some more.
Anyone have a remarkably positive Gee the JCP listens to everyone and I
can disclose everything to my fellow committers and its been great for
our community?
-Andy
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 11/3/03 23:40 Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:09:14 -0500
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
Thanks Pier. Thats
Craig M. wrote:
| Andy seems to believe that *implementing* a specification (as opposed to
| creating one) is not a valid itch to be scratched if he doesn't like the
| mechanism by which the specification is created. It's perfectly
| reasonable for Andy to decide that for the projects he gets
: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
Thanks Pier. Thats a great perpective. Lets have some more.
Anyone have a remarkably positive Gee the JCP listens to everyone and I
can disclose everything to my fellow committers and its been great for
our community?
Andy seems to believe that *implementing
List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
Thanks Pier. Thats a great perpective. Lets have some more.
Anyone have a remarkably positive Gee the JCP listens to everyone and I
can disclose everything to my fellow committers
- Original Message -
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
Yeah, on second thought, its a great idea to remove choice in a project
and instead submit
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
As with any standard, the decision making is based on a group of
people representing different interests. Apache does have a vote (
AFAIK ),
just like Sun or IBM. Projects should be able to participate - and
we should find a way
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 10:58 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
As it turns out, there is substantial room for innovation and debate in
the implementation of API specs like servlet and JSP (see the history
of
Tomcat development, and the recent innovation going on there for an
example), just
]
Subject: Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
Thanks Pier. Thats a great perpective. Lets have some more.
Anyone have a remarkably positive Gee the JCP listens to everyone
and I
can disclose everything to my fellow committers and its been great
for
our community?
Andy seems to believe
Paulo Silveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry not giving a link the other time. Here is Apache voting against
JSR 127 long time ago.
http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=614
You can see Apache´s comment:
On 2001-05-28 Apache Software Foundation voted No with the following
comment:
Why create something in official Java APIs/Products when
there is allready a good OSS alternative.
To standardise it. Why is OSS any different?
Exactly! So why bother standardizing it via Sun. If there is a
ubiquitous Apache standard already, then there is NO need for a Sun
Danny Angus wrote:
Why create something in official Java APIs/Products when there
is allready a good OSS alternative.
To standardise it. Why is OSS any different?
Exactly! So why bother standardizing it via Sun. If there is a
ubiquitous Apache standard already, then there is NO need
Paulo Silveira wrote:
Sorry not giving a link the other time. Here is Apache voting against
JSR 127 long time ago.
In such case we could (should) understand ASF position.
Why create something in official Java APIs/Products when
there is allready a good OSS alternative.
It still a shame that Sun
I can understand it if the ASF were worried that a JSR would put the
existence of the OSS project in doubt, due to the legalities of an OSS
project not being able to be a JSR implementation in some cases, but not
to protect their product.
Why not? What is the point of having a JSR which
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 09:00 AM, Paulo Silveira wrote:
On 2001-05-28 Apache Software Foundation voted No with the following
comment:
This JSR conflicts with the Apache open source project Struts.
Considering Sun's current position that JSRs may not be independently
implemented under an
Its Sun's JSR, let them impelment it. Why does Apache have to play lap
dog to Sun? Who wants to spend their free time working on what are
usually lousy specifications that they have no input into? JSRs usually
come with community problems such as Non-Disclosure agreements which put
some
I don't know any of this stuff about Apache refusing a JSR.
As I'm seeing it from my end, Jakarta looks to centralize good technologies,
but only if a good community of developers and users are part of the deal.
I suspect that this rejecting a JSR may come down to something like Sun
trying to
54 matches
Mail list logo
