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 #107
JCACHE - Java Temporary Caching API
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2013-08-27 to: 2013-09-09
These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #107. The EC has approved this ballot.
Votes

Andreani, Stefano
Aplix Corporation
Arm Limited
Azul Systems, Inc.
CloudBees
Credit Suisse
Eclipse Foundation, Inc
Ericsson AB
Fujitsu Limited
Gemalto M2M GmbH
Goldman Sachs & Co.
Google Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel Corp.
Keil, Werner
London Java Community
Nokia Corporation
Oracle
Red Hat
SAP SE
SouJava
TOTVS
Twitter, Inc.
Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted
View Vote Log

On 2013-08-27 Nokia Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-05 Azul Systems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-08-28 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Yes with the following comment:
Very supportive of the move to JCP 2.9 and availability of TCK and RI licenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-01 Aplix Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-02 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-03 Gemalto M2M GmbH voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-03 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-05 TOTVS voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-05 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-06 Keil, Werner voted Yes with the following comment:
This JSR has been around for a while and also missed Java EE 7 release train, but it is good to improve things where necessary rather than prematurely rushing into a release. 
The development on GitHub (even with Oracle as co Spec Lead) is a good sign towards an open, transparent development. Its licensing, though it may not be in everybody's favor is in perfect compliance with JCP license model and both Spec and API use the same (Spec) license here. 

Aside from that, most license headers and files say "Copyright (c) 2011-2013 Terracotta, Inc." while the JSR detail has Greg Luck as "shadow Individual" Spec Lead. As the JSR was created so early, maybe that's a part of history, but as to our knowledge Greg is a full time permanwnt employee of Terracotta/SW AG it seems as bad as those issues the Individual WG of JSR 358 tries to reolve. Currently it seems legitimate, but for a JSR that's not final, this should probably be resolved, too.

As Oracle plans a Configuration JSR very soon targeting Java EE 8 or other environments and this JSR also mainly targets EE 8 (it is not a core part of SE 8) a coordination with an upcoming configuration JSR or some sort of "pluggability" would be a great advantage over "reinventing the wheel" here with the "configuration" package. Both Dev and Ops would benefit from this instead of having a separate "cache configuration" in addition to a more general one. Since this is just a Public Draft, I hope, there will be enough time, especially for Oracle (involved in both) to find synergies before the final release of this JSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-06 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-08 Twitter, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-08 CloudBees voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-08 Andreani, Stefano voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-08 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 London Java Community voted Yes with the following comment:
Having watched Greg and the EG persevere through some tough times with this JSR, we're really happy with both it's technical content and its move to JCP 2.9 (and the subsequent availability of TCK and RI licenses).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 Credit Suisse voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 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 2013-09-09 Arm Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with the following comment:
Fujitsu's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 SouJava voted Yes with the following comment:
SouJava is very pleased with the move of this JSR earlier this year to JCP-2.9 and the resulting transparency, and also with the technical results achieved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2013-09-09 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------