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 #217
Personal Basis Profile 1.1
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2003-04-29 to: 2003-05-12
These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #217. The Executive Committee for ME has not approved this ballot.
Votes

BEA Systems
IBM
Insignia Solutions
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Motorola
Nokia Corporation
PalmSource, Inc.
Philips Electronics UK Ltd
Research In Motion, LTD (RIM)
Siemens AG
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
Sony International (Europe) GmbH
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Symbian Ltd
Texas Instruments Inc.
Zucotto Wireless
Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted
View Vote Log

On 2003-05-12 Nokia Corporation voted No with the following comment:
We are worried about the fact that a new optional package, in this case JSR-209, is causing a need for this kind of a significant extension work for existing CDC/PP platform, being used in products and referenced from external standards. For clarity, we do not object filing new optional packages, but their uninformed impact to platform specs. Greater caution should be used in judging when to add mandatory features to existing platforms.
Furthermore when JSR-209 was filed, there was no mention about the connection to JSRs 216-219 and the need to make extensions to the configuration and profiles.
We ourselves have had difficulty in identifying  any real needs to make this kind of a major upgrade to the Personal Profile, PBP, FF and CDC.
 
We are concerned that the footprint of the CDC,PP, FF,PBP will be significantly increased implying a penalty for J2ME implementations, including those not implementing JSR-209.

We think that many of the proposed extensions should be made as separate optional packages and must not be mandatory for the basic platform.  
However, we understand that there may be a need to make small  updates to the existing platform, but the footprint increment of these must be kept to minimum.

Nokia's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and not on the licensing terms.  Still, Nokia wants to express 
its support for license models that foster an open environment for and wide acceptance and adoption of Java specifications. 
Nokia believes that competition in implementation of Java technologies is best served through license models that are simple, predictable and affordable for a wide range of implementors. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Motorola voted No with the following comment:
Motorola votes "No" with the following reasons:

1) JSRs 216-219, as written, presume that JSR 209 as one of the fundamental reasons for the JSRs.  For example, JSR 216 says: "Additionally, the Advanced Graphics and UI (AGUI) Optional Package for J2ME (JSR-209) will require underlying platform support not present in version 1.0 of this Profile." Such a linkage is too tight a coupling in that most devices in this space will not want/need JSR 209.

2) The expected size increases are unacceptable. The CDC-based Java space needs to become _smaller_, not larger.

3) Finally, we do not see evidence that new APIs from J2SE 1.4 are required by devices in this space

Motorola recommends that these concerns be addressed and new JSRs be submitted at a later date.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 IBM voted No with the following comment:
We are concerned about the significant size increases necessary to support the updated versions of configurations and profiles in the proposed JSRs 216 - 219.  For a target device platform, with the proposed updates for CDC/Foundation/Personal Basis/Personal Profile plus JSR-209; we feel that the community would be better served by a J2SE execution environment.  Why create another platform that is approaching J2SE, but has differences.  Evolving this technology within J2SE assures platform consistency and no fragmentation.

IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage.  We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction.   This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Research In Motion, LTD (RIM) voted Yes with the following comment:
RIM strongly encourages the spec lead to discuss memory footprint limitations with the EG given the highly dependent nature of these profiles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-04-30 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Insignia Solutions voted No with the following comment:
We believe that these functions would be better expressed as optional packages. In addition the size increase would priovide an additional hurdle to adoption. 

Insignia's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and not on the licensing terms.

However, Insignia would like to see a model that encourages broad adoption of a JSR without imposing terms that are potentially difficult to predict and afford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 BEA Systems voted No with the following comment:
BEA concurs with the ballot comments from Philips, Motorola, Matsushita, Nokia, IBM, and Insignia and reservations stated by others.  We believe that the packaging issues should be reconsidered before resubmitting this JSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 PalmSource, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
We cannot support this JSR as written for one significant reason: the increase in size specified in this JSR is significantly greater than acceptable in the targeted spaces, making this fairly impossible to attain acceptance. 

Although we are voting against this for purely technical reasons, we believe that the licensing terms for this JSR seems somewhat odd, and will not foster acceptance. We encourage the spec lead to modify the business terms to help this JSR gain acceptance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Siemens AG voted No with the following comment:
Siemens votes NO and shares the comments from Philips, Motorola, Matsushita, Nokia, IBM, and Insignia regarding the footprint and the relation to JSR 209. Footprint is a sensitive topic for J2ME devices and should not be increased in general for a platform without major needs. 
For the licensing terms the same comments as for JSR 177 approval ballot applies. Siemens believes that there is a need for predictable costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-08 Philips Electronics UK Ltd voted Abstain with the following comment:
We are cannot support this JSR as written because we regard the increase in the minimum ROM size specified in the JSR to be very significantly greater than what is acceptable for some of the markets which this specification is intended to address. We recognise that most of this increase is as a result of changes in other JSRs on 
which this one relies and have voted against those JSRs and are merely abstaining against this one. Apart from this, we have no objection in principle to the contents proposed for this JSR.

If this JSR is not approved then we strongly encourage Sun to revise it specify a much smaller minimum ROM size and to present such a revised version for reconsideration ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Texas Instruments Inc. voted Yes with the following comment:
We feel that the issues raised by Philips and others concerning this JSR would be best addressed by a full EG rather than by the proposed Spec Lead alone. We also feel that it is better to have this Profile EG active at the same time as the optional API EG (209), as this is likely to result in a better informed decision concerning the split of functionality between the two.

Also, we are confused about why a minor update to a JSR should result in a radically different proposal for licensing terms. We believe that the terms should remain consistent with the terms offered for the original Profile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Symbian Ltd voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-12 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. voted No with the following comment:
We strongly recommend these functionality to be provided as "optional package" instead of extension of PBP. If this JSR is approved, the footprint size seems to be oversized for most of J2ME devices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------