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 #350
Java State Management
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2011-08-02 to: 2011-08-15

These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #350. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Credit Suisse

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Ericsson AB

Fujitsu Limited

Goldman Sachs & Co.

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Keil, Werner

London Java Community

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

SouJava

VMware

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2011-08-04 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-12 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-15 Keil, Werner voted Yes with the following comment:
As initial EG member of JSR 323 which had some very similar visions (e.g. "movement of state from one location to another") but was driven by Individual Members only, thus rejected (misunderstood;-) by even the current Spec Lead company, I am happy to see this idea brought up again in a slightly different form. I saw Jeff's presentation at EclipseCon last year and many aspects of it reminded me also of Java JINI, another technology that although initiated by Sun died soon after never quite gaining enough momentum.

I vote "Yes" based on the technical aspects of this very promising JSR, but share some concerns of fellow EC members, that license and EG communications should follow the spirit of JSR 348 with regards to transparency and a widely accepted license rather than a proprietary one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-15 SouJava voted Yes with the following comment:
SouJava votes Yes to accept this specification. We would like to see more open RI and TCK licenses, especially considering that this proposal intends to be delivered together with the JavaEE RI. We also expect that this JSR will follow the guidelines of JSR-348 on transparency and community involvement when those are final.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-03 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-11 Red Hat voted Yes with the following comment:
Red Hat's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  Red Hat would prefer a licensing model that creates an open arena for everyone, including those not members of the JCP and removes any ability for one individual or vendor to exert undue control over a standard. We are an open source company and hence would like to see such a licensing model for JCP contributions. Note however, that this comment is not necessarily directed at the license terms for this JSR, but is a statement of Red Hat's preferred licensing model.

We would also prefer to see the specification page to be updated to refer to CDI instead of Seam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-15 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 2011-08-03 Credit Suisse voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-08 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-09 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-15 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-15 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-15 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------