Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Pier Fumagalli]

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 online forums where developers interested
> in the fate of the spec hangs out. We could have started discussions
> there, and urged people to send feedback to Sun.

This is why I feel that my work as the official representative to that EG
has been a failure :-( _MY_ failure...

Pier


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Hans Bergsten]

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 discuss your concerns in public as soon as a public
draft of the spec is available, and there are at least two public drafts
before the spec is finalized; plenty of time to make sure the larger
community is aware of, and agrees with, what's being suggested.
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.


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...
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 online forums where developers interested
in the fate of the spec hangs out. We could have started discussions
there, and urged people to send feedback to Sun.
The JCP does not demand a "closed room discussion" all the way through;
there's plenty of opportunity to raise concerns and put external
pressure on the spec lead organization before the spec is final. Also,
don't judge JCP based on a single EG. I'm in four EGs, and while there's
been problems now and then in some of them, on the whole they work
pretty good.
I would be happier if the whole discussion leading up to a spec was
more open (and the JCP allows for it), but even the way it's typically
done, it's not all that bad. And compared to other spec organizations
(W3C, ECMA, IETF, etc.), it has a pretty good track record on average
for getting out specs with industry support in a reasonable time.
There are exceptions, of course, but I'm sure that's true for all
similar efforts.
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gefion Software   
Author of O'Reilly's "JavaServer Pages", covering JSP 1.2 and JSTL 1.0
Details at
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

re: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)

[Rich Persaud]

|  > Software history is replete with creation of new "economic tiers".  Even 
|  > "open-source" has it's GPL, BSD and countless other camplets.  If an 
|  > existing organization can't serve multiple audiences, is there room and
|  > reason for a supplemental one?
|  >
|
|  You mean is there room for the crap JCP?  Apparently. . People also 
|  continue to run IIS...  They just don't yet know any better ;-)

Risk is also a function of what your peers are doing.  One can know
of better options and choose not de-link themselves from the actuarial
(financial) safety of a standard.  You know that whatever happens to
you will happen to the others equally.  

This predictability is as much a form of community as transparency of 
code and process.  Common pain is no less common because it's pain, 
rumors of common pleasure not withstanding.

|  Or you mean an OpenSoftwareStandards.org?

No and Yes.  Apache already has an earned and defensible position at 
the boundary of open and closed cooperation, with neighbors like FSF
and JCP.  There are market gaps for small, code-distributed standards 
in both geo-regional and skill-vertical industries.   Something like:

 NonAntitrustVendorStandardsForBiggerOpenMarketsAndFood.org

|  Andy

Rich

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Rich Persaud]

|  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 instrument. 

Discussion cultures have evolution as their goal, while bureaucratic 
cultures have risk reduction and cost distribution as their goals.

Bureaucracies can be changed by:

 1.  localized force (negotiation: private risk & private cost distribution)

 2.  distributed feedback (metrics: public risk & public cost distribution)

 3.  obsolescence (competition: public risk & discontinuous costs)

Apache is capable of exercising any or all of these, independent
of circumstantial parties or objectives.

Rich

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Pier Fumagalli]

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 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and from time to time to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well... But I can't to tomcat-dev (I know only two
developers involved with the RI which are members: Remy and Craig, and the
latter is on that list in virtue of his employment with Sun - looking at me
Jon and Jason making fool of ourselves, of course)

Pier


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Geir Magnusson Jr .]

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 like servlet and JSP (see the history
of
Tomcat development, and the recent innovation going on there for an
example), just like there is lots of room to be creative in
implementing
something like HTTP, which has been done, and continues to be done, 
in
a very large number of implementations in a very large number of
languages -- despite the fact that the W3C standards process, like 
many
others, includes periods of time when only the "privileged few" are
allowed to be involved.
Take it a step further - how many internationally recognized standards
processes will allow a single individual to propose, develop and
deliver a standard?  The JCP will...
Yes, but why can I share with my friends concerns on the new W3C
specifications and confront them in public, while I cannot do that 
with the
JCP specifications???
You can do that after they are public specs, right?  You can do the 
same with complete JCP-produced specs.

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...
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 surrounding this issue.

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.

geir

Pier

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-956-2604(w)
Adeptra, Inc.   203-434-2093(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   203-247-1713(m)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Pier Fumagalli]

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 concerns in public as soon as a public
> draft of the spec is available, and there are at least two public drafts
> before the spec is finalized; plenty of time to make sure the larger
> community is aware of, and agrees with, what's being suggested.
> 
> 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.

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


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Hans Bergsten]

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
Tomcat development, and the recent innovation going on there for an
example), just like there is lots of room to be creative in
implementing
something like HTTP, which has been done, and continues to be done, in
a very large number of implementations in a very large number of
languages -- despite the fact that the W3C standards process, like many
others, includes periods of time when only the "privileged few" are
allowed to be involved.
Take it a step further - how many internationally recognized standards
processes will allow a single individual to propose, develop and
deliver a standard?  The JCP will...


Yes, but why can I share with my friends concerns on the new W3C
specifications and confront them in public, while I cannot do that with the
JCP specifications???
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 concerns in public as soon as a public
draft of the spec is available, and there are at least two public drafts
before the spec is finalized; plenty of time to make sure the larger
community is aware of, and agrees with, what's being suggested.
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.
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gefion Software   
Author of O'Reilly's "JavaServer Pages", covering JSP 1.2 and JSTL 1.0
Details at
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?

[Pier Fumagalli]

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 development, and the recent innovation going on there for an
>> example), just like there is lots of room to be creative in
>> implementing
>> something like HTTP, which has been done, and continues to be done, in
>> a very large number of implementations in a very large number of
>> languages -- despite the fact that the W3C standards process, like many
>> others, includes periods of time when only the "privileged few" are
>> allowed to be involved.
> 
> Take it a step further - how many internationally recognized standards
> processes will allow a single individual to propose, develop and
> deliver a standard?  The JCP will...

Yes, but why can I share with my friends concerns on the new W3C
specifications and confront them in public, while I cannot do that with the
JCP specifications???

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...

Pier


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: fair notice

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Doh! someone just sent this to me.  I didn't notice the date!  thanks 
for pointing that out.

Theoretically I suppose you could patent OLE 2 Compound document format... 

"Bad way to aggregate objects into a mock filesystem inside of a file"

Glad its old news!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The link is to information that is a little old (June 2000).  Is there a
more recent update that is disturbing you?  Did this particular example ever
go anywhere?  Patenting file formats might be disturbing, and I'm not an
expert, but I don't see how it would stop someone from reverse engineering a
"reader" or a "writer" of that format.  Wouldn't it just mean that one
wouldn't be able to create a file format that is the same?  I guess it
depends on how the patent is written, I suppose.
-Mark

 

-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:57 PM
To: POI Developers List; Jakarta General List
Subject: fair notice
I appologize to those of us who get this 2 times...

This could later affect POI (http://jakarta.apache.org/poi), but does
not currently: http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html
Granted POI would be in "good company" with a wide berth of software and
there would likely be a retributative effect that
might backfire on Microsoft.
I'll keep this brief, but the patenting of file formats could be a
disturbing trend.  I'll certainly keep an eye on this.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]