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 #275
Units Specification
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2005-05-31 to: 2005-06-13

These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #275. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Apple Computer, Inc.

BEA Systems

Borland Software Corporation

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Lea, Doug

Nortel

Oracle

Progress Software

Red Hat

SAP SE

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2005-06-08 Red Hat voted Yes with the following comment:
The JSR108 EG produced no single draft in three years of existence. We seriously hope that this second attempt to address Units in Java will produce more tangible results in a more decent timeframe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-09 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
Sun is voting "no" on this JSR based on concern over whether there
is broad need for this JSR and concern that this is essentially
equivalent to an earlier JSR (108) which was previously withdrawn.

It is possible that this topic may eventually benefit from a JSR.
However, it is not yet clear that there is broad Java community interest
in a Java standard in this space.   There appeared to be only fairly 
limited community interest in JSR-108.

I would like to suggest that the submitters continue investigating and
developing their API as a standalone class library.  Once they have more
experience and can demonstrate broader community interest, it may be 
appropriate to launch a JSR.

                                                          - Graham

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-09 Intel Corp. voted No with the following comment:
JSR 108 was withdrawn after 3 years without producing an initial draft.  This new JSR appears to be a continuation of that work, but doesn't have an Early Draft scheduled in the near future.  Before deciding on a standard, more experience with implentations, exploration of performance impacts in running code (build time[JSR 269] vs runtime processing) and broader input (perhaps from the academic community) may be helpful.  Experience with packages outside the standardization process can pave the way for determining what the best way forward is for defining a Java standard.  This JSR looks like it would benefit from more R&D before standardization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-10 Lea, Doug voted Yes with the following comment:
I believe that the proposed EG members have adequately addressed concerns about this resubmission

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 BEA Systems voted Yes with the following comment:
Although BEA is sympathetic with some of the concerns raised by others, we have concluded that the correct response is not to vote NO now, but to allow the proposers a chance to go forward and re-evaluate at the next checkpoint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 Progress Software voted Yes with the following comment:
IONA is voting Yes on this JSR based on the stated intent of the sponsors to avoid the delays and mishaps of the earlier JSR 108 which was, after an extended dormancy, withdrawn.  Circumstances and people change and we believe this JSR should have another chance to get it right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 IBM voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 Oracle voted Abstain with the following comment:
Although Oracle was initially inclined to vote NO on this ballot supporting the positions presented by Sun and Intel, we are abstaining in light of the arguments in favor presented by Doug Lea and others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 Google Inc. voted Yes with the following comment:
Google is voting yes but with reservations: The API described on http://www.jscience.org/api/org/jscience/physics/units/package-summary.html is far too complex.  If this API is ever to be included in the JDK it must be simplified considerably.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-06-13 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------