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 #347
Data Grids for the Java^TM Platform
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2011-04-26 to: 2011-05-09
These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #347. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.
Votes

SE/EE
Credit Suisse
Eclipse Foundation, Inc
Ericsson AB
Fujitsu Limited
Google Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel Corp.
Keil, Werner
Oracle
Red Hat
SAP SE
VMware
Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted
View Vote Log

SE/EE
On 2011-05-05 Intel Corp. voted Abstain with the following comment:
There appears to be some duplication between JSR 347 and JSR 107. While we have no objections to the content of JSR 347, the relationship between JSR 347 and JSR 107 should be clarified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-09 SAP SE voted Yes with the following comment:
From the JSR description, a certain overlap between JSR 107 and JSR 347 is apparent. 

At the same time, judging from the JSR summary page of JSR 107, its Expert Group seems to have not put out a single public draft since EG formation in 2001(!). There is no eternal monopoly on a specific topic in the JCP, and while it's certainly confusing that another JSR is started in a similar space, it doesn't seem suprising either. 

JSR 107 hasn't been withdrawn and it appears the EG is still alive. Oracle as the JSR 107 co-Spec Lead has said in its voting comment that a first draft of JSR 107 is due "in a few weeks". That would be a decade after the EG was formed, so we find it a bit surprising that Oracle in its voting comment is unilaterally calling for JSR 347 to adjust its relationship to JSR 107. There is no first mover advantage in the JCP, so given its long inactivity and lack of transparency of progress, we think the JSR 107 EG has an equal responsibility to coordinate with JSR 347. 

Perhaps it would be best to combine the EGs and withdraw either 107 or 347? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-04-27 Red Hat voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-06 Keil, Werner voted Yes with the following comment:
I fully support the pledge for the two JSRs to communicate and coordinate, as others mentioned here. Taking JSR 330 and 299 as probably the best example nobody will doubt, that two JSRs one based on the other in a proper way has been among the most significant improvements to Java EE 6. If done in a similar or even better way between 107 and 347 it could benefit Java EE 7, especially with its focus on Cloud and Distributed Systems.

Oracle and its technologies like Coherence may also play an important role here. I trust Oracle's judgement and interest in getting involved which their vote will reflect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-06 Oracle voted Yes with the following comment:
Oracle is concerned about the potential overlap of this JSR with JSR 107. JSR 107 draft is due in a few weeks and that will make it more explicit as to what the first release of JSR 107 covers. We expect that the scope of this JSR will be adjusted as the relationship with JSR 107 becomes more clear. Our 'yes' vote should be construed as a vote to see coordination between this JSR and JSR 107 to remove any overlap before this JSR goes to Public Review. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-08 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with the following comment:
Similar to other responses, we expect that any overlap with JSR107 be resolved in short order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-09 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
IBM is in favour of this JSR provided there is sufficient coordination between its development and that of JSR 107 to avoid any duplication or conflict between the two specifications.

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 2011-05-09 VMware voted No with the following comment:
VMware has serious concerns around the proposed JSR's relationship with JSR-107. While we note that some other EC members hope that the necessary harmonization can occur after the approval of this JSR, we would prefer to see such discussions take place before another potentially competing JSR is approved, and see that path as less risky.

We do believe that this area is important and warrants interest from the JCP. The JSR-347 proposal includes useful functionality, but raises a serious risk of fragmentation and confusion.

We would prefer to see JSR-107 brought swiftly to a conclusion without excessive scope creep, allowing a new JSR then to be presented building upon it.

We understand the concern around the excessive time taken by the JSR-107 process. A first step in this space should be to arrive at a clear plan for completion of JSR-107. If this is not possible, JSR-107 should be brought to an end, and a new proposal would be appropriate at that point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-09 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-09 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------