We are submitting this request for consideration by the SE/EE EC, ahead
of next week's meeting.
For the past six weeks the JSR-330 expert group has worked feverishly
on updating the initial API
proposal to better align it with JSR-299, as requested by several
members during the inception ballot for 330 
Following these changes, we (Sun) feel comfortable with including
JSR-330 in the Java EE 6 Platform (developed as JSR-316). At the same
we'd like to minimize the impact that this late change of plans will
have on our release schedule.
JSR-330 has a broad participation from the dependency injection
community, with representatives from all major and not-so-major
the original JSR-330 proposal was made public well in advance
of the JSR submission;
there has been extensive debate on that proposal through
blogs, etc., authored by prominent community members;
the JSR-330 expert group has been operating in the open at
, with a publicly readable mailing list, a publicly accessible issue
tracker and a publicly accessible source code repository;
the JSR-330 expert group reached an agreement on the API at
the end of June and made only editorial changes to the API since then;
the specification for the API, in the form of javadocs, has
been publicly accessible the entire time and was promptly updated to
reflect any expert group decisions;
we feel that the intent of the "Early Draft Review" stage, as detailed
in section 2.3 of the JCP 2.7 process document , has been fully
In particular, as required by the process document, "Anyone with access
to the Internet can download and comment on the draft": indeed, the
been able to comment on the then current specification draft since the
formation of the expert group. Furthermore, the public has been able to
follow every step taken by the expert group in addressing the comments
and correcting any issues thus discovered.
We request that the SE/EE Executive Committee recognize that JSR-330,
openness and transparency of its working process, has effectively met
all the requirements listed in the process document for the Early Draft
Review, and consequently that it should be allowed to submit a draft
for Public Review without further ado.
Naturally, we envision that similar criteria be applied in the future
any JSR that satisfies the same requirements for openness and
transparency, and we hope that a future revision of the JCP Process
Document will explicitly account for this situation.