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 #225
XQuery API for Java^TM (XQJ)
Final Approval Ballot
Ballot duration: 2008-02-19 to: 2008-03-03

These are the final results of the Final Approval Ballot for JSR #225. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

BEA Systems

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Lea, Doug

Nortel

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

SAS Institute Inc.

Suleiman, Hani

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2008-02-28 Red Hat voted Yes with the following comment:
The spec lead of the EE6 specification has confirmed that the EE6 TCK would contain no "field of use restrictions", as originally raised by Apache with regard to another JSR (i.e. the SE TCK licensing). That is a good thing.

However, in the absence of an explicit JSPA rule that would forbid such field-of-use restrictions, we will remain worried that a similar issue might resurface anytime, for any JSR.

Consequently, in the future, for any submitted JSR (by SUNW or not), we will specifically expect the spec lead to provide clear information on that aspect and take the answer in account when casting our vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-02-28 BEA Systems voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-02-28 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-02 Nortel voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-03 IBM voted Abstain with the following comment:
The capabilities proposed by this specification would be more usefully provided in a future version of JDBC.

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 2008-03-03 SAS Institute Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-03 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-03 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-03 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Abstain with the following comment:
We are glad to see the definition of the XQuery API reach the 1.0 stage.

However, examination of the TCK submitted reveals quickly that it is shallow. While some of the simple, method level level positive assertions are tested, it appears that many of the deeper semantics appear are left untested

We feel the TCKs produced by a spec lead should provide a realistic measure of adherence to a specification that an expert group has spent time and effort defining. We do not feel this TCK reaches that level, and we strongly encourage any future revision of this specification to significantly improve the quality of the TCK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-03 Fujitsu Limited voted Abstain with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-03-03 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------