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 #319
Availability Management for Java
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2009-01-13 to: 2009-01-20

These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #319. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Ericsson AB

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Keil, Werner

Lea, Doug

Nortel

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

VMware

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2009-01-13 Keil, Werner voted Yes with the following comment:
I was a bit puzzled, to find not single reference to JMX in your proposal. Although the SAF pages indicate, this targets primarily the EE section, I consider it viable under the strong precaution of how to use the terms SERVICE, BUNDLE or MODULE in your approach? To avoid clashes or redundant effort similar to the Java Module JSRs we all know, please consider talking and collaborating with those JSRs now used for that. Especially 294 and where applicable JMX and of course OSGi.

In my understanding "Java runtime units" means no more than "modules" as defined and meant to handled by Project Jigsaw. While the question of a "Super JSR" for Java 7 is still unanswered anyway, I believe, some "umbrella" around 294 and others like this sounds like a good idea unless the ideas you propose are already fully taken care of by those other JSRs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-13 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-13 VMware voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-14 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 2009-01-15 Intel Corp. voted Yes with the following comment:
This is a general comment we make in each ballot  By the agreement that forms the JCP, other than reciprocity rules for licensing and three compatibility conditions (including passing the TCK test suite) "the Spec Lead agrees not to impose any contractual condition or covenant that would limit or restrict the right of any licensee to create or distribute such Independent Implementations." The Apache Foundation claims in an open letter that they have been unable to obtain a TCK License that does not restrict compatible implementations of the SE Platform (additional restrictions that are not in the  specification itself ). 

According to the public JSR page, the TCK for this JSR will be released under an open source license so there is no concern about the fou issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-15 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-19 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 2009-01-19 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-19 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------