The Java Community Process(SM) Program - JSRs: Java Specification Requests

Use of JCP site is subject to the JCP Terms of Use and the Oracle Privacy Policy

JSR #88
Java^TM EE Application Deployment
Final Approval Ballot
Ballot duration: 2002-04-23 to: 2002-05-06

These are the final results of the Final Approval Ballot for JSR #88. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has not approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Apple Computer, Inc.

BEA Systems

Borland Software Corporation

Caldera Systems

Cisco Systems

Compaq Computer Corporation

Fujitsu Limited

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Lea, Doug

Macromedia, Inc.

Nokia Networks

Oracle

Progress Software

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2002-05-06 Borland Software Corporation voted No with the following comment:
Borland fully supports this technology, but based on the concerns raised by IBM and BEA, we feels that it is best that the expert group resubmit the JSR after resolving the issues around the RI and the TCK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Fujitsu Limited voted Abstain with the following comment:
I believe that RI/TCK should be prepared by a final vote according JCP2 rule. So if the JSR doesn't require RI/TCK, then it's better the Spec Lead or PMO to inform EC about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Oracle voted Abstain with the following comment:
Oracle supports the technical aspects of JSR 88 but is abstaining on this final approval ballot in support of the procedural issued raised by IBM and BEA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Hewlett-Packard voted No with the following comment:
HP supports the adoption of this technology.  However, based on the experiences reported in the comments from BEA and IBM, we must vote NO to maintain the integrity of the process.  We hope the EG takes advantage of the reconsideration period and rapidly finalizes the RI and TCK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 BEA Systems voted No with the following comment:
BEA supports IBM's position that the RI and TCK should be approved by the EG before a final approval ballot as required in the JCP 2.x process document. Based on information received from our EG member, it was not. We have no technical issues with the content of the specification and look forward to a quick reconsideration cycle after the EG has had time to do its job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Macromedia, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
Based on indications from IBM that the expert group did not reach consensus before submitting the JSR for vote, and that the RI and TCK have not achieved appropriate readiness for a final approval ballot, we are voting "No" at this time in support of the community process, and look forward to reviewing the JSR again upon quick re-submission with the proper deliverables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Lea, Doug voted Abstain with the following comment:
I don't understand the logistics issues surrounding
this vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Nokia Networks voted Abstain with the following comment:
The points raised by IBM are valid: the expert group needs to be unanimous with respect to the completeness of spec, RI and TCK. Judging from the email discussion the completeness of TCK is not clear. However, the fact that JSR is brought to final vote, means that the spec lead trusts that it is complete. Based on these points, and the fact that IBM and Bea are more involved in this JSR and are able to see the status inside, it is hard to vote other than 'abstain'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-06 Caldera Systems voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-02 Progress Software voted Yes with the following comment:
IONA is voting 'Yes' with the understanding that if this specification needs to change following the definition of another specification as part of the J2EE 1.4 specification, that the Expert Group will be re-formed and the changes made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-05-02 Cisco Systems voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-04-30 IBM voted No with the following comment:
We understand thatthe Expert Group were not aware that the Spec/RI/TCK were being submitted for a Final vote; the PMO have also verified this problem. One of the advantages of the JCP is the review for completeness and correctness of the RI/TCK that the Expert Group are responsible for, before submission to the EC.  JCP 2 actually requires the Expert Group to be satisfied before submission to the EC for final vote (in section 3.3).

Given that this has not happened, IBM are voting "No" in this cycle, and recommending that other EC members consider their voting positions. If the overall vote is "No", then the JCP process allows 30 days for re-submission, which should give the Expert Group adequate review time for these important deliverables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-04-23 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------