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 #329
Portlet 2.0 Bridge for JavaServer^TM Faces 1.2 Specification
Final Approval Ballot
Ballot duration: 2010-11-23 to: 2010-12-06

These are the final results of the Final Approval Ballot for JSR #329. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Credit Suisse

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Ericsson AB

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Keil, Werner

Oracle

Peierls, Tim

Red Hat

SAP SE

VMware

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2010-11-29 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-01 Apache Software Foundation voted No with the following comment:
The Apache Software Foundation must vote no on this JSR.  While we support the technical contents of the JSR, we must vote no as the spec lead - Oracle - is in breach of their obligations under the JSPA by continuing to provide a TCK license for Apache Harmony under terms that allow Apache to distribute its independent implementation under terms of its choice.  We do not believe that anyone that willfully fails to meet their contractual obligations under the JSPA should be allowed to participate as a member in good stating in the JCP.  The rules apply to everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-03 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 2010-12-05 VMware voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-06 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-11-30 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-04 Red Hat voted Yes with the following comment:
Red Hat's vote is based solely on the technical merits of the JSR. We believe that this JSR is important for the industry at large and that further delays risk fracturing the Java landscape further. However, we are extremely disappointed with the license terms and that a more open license has not been adopted by the Specification Lead. We continue to believe that the TCK should contain no "field of use restrictions", as originally raised by Apache with regard to another JSR during the development of EE6 (i.e. the SE TCK licensing). As a result, this approach risks limiting adoption of this and subsequent JSRs by a wider audience and the fracturing that we mentioned earlier could still occur. We hope that all Specification Leads will take this into account in the future and rank the viability of the Java Community higher than one individual member's abilities to monetise the platform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-11-24 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-05 Credit Suisse voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-06 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-06 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-06 Keil, Werner voted Abstain with the following comment:
Since questions in the jsr-329-public forum about compatibility with JSF versions above 1.2 remain unanswered, or why there's 2 almost identical JSRs for JSF 1.2 with JSF 2 out and final over 1 1/2 years now (329 only reached proper EDR 3 weeks after JSF 2 went final!) I consider this a serious lack of coordination and transparency among JSRs and see no other alternative than to abstain.
I hope, unless a MR to this JSR was compatible with JSF 2, the EG would focus its effort on creating a proper successor for JSF 2 which is unless significant new development brings us Portlet 3.0 was fine based on Portlet 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-12-06 Google Inc. voted Abstain with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------