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 #170
Content Repository for Java^TM technology API
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2004-07-13 to: 2004-07-19

These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #170. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Apple Computer, Inc.

BEA Systems

Borland Software Corporation

Caldera Systems

Fujitsu Limited

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Lea, Doug

Macromedia, Inc.

Nokia Networks

Oracle

Progress Software

SAP SE

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2004-07-15 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
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 2004-07-16 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2004-07-19 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2004-07-19 BEA Systems voted Yes with the following comment:
Although BEA is voting YES at this time, we do have several concerns that we would like to see addressed before this JSR is presented for final approval:
1. Adopting two query languages is counter to Java's emphasis on ease of use. We'd prefer only a single language be supported.
2. Since many implementors will support this API through partnerships with content management vendors, we are concerned that some existing interface definitions are too prescriptive for these existing products. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2004-07-19 Progress Software voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2004-07-19 Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2004-07-19 Borland Software Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2004-07-19 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------