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 #354
Money and Currency API
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2014-01-07 to: 2014-01-21
These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #354. The EC has approved this ballot.
Votes

Arm Limited
Azul Systems, Inc.
CloudBees
Credit Suisse
Eclipse Foundation, Inc
Ericsson AB
Freescale Semiconductor
Fujitsu Limited
Gemalto M2M GmbH
Goldman Sachs & Co.
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel Corp.
Keil, Werner
London Java Community
MoroccoJUG
Nokia Corporation
Oracle
Red Hat
SAP SE
Software AG
SouJava
TOTVS
Twitter, Inc.
V2COM
Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted
View Vote Log

On 2014-01-21 London Java Community voted No with the following comment:
We preface our No vote with the following:

We stress that the LJC recognizes that this feedback to the JSR is arriving very late and we also wanted to re-iterate that the JSR has come on a great deal and we believe it has the potential to succeed, but is still quite a long way from being ready for acceptance as a standard.

The standard is self-contradictory in a number of places - notably around currency conversion (which is explicitly ruled out of scope at the start, but then referred to later). The draft makes rather vague assertions about being in scope as a platform JSR for JDK 9 - which is surely currently much too early, and yet still intends to remain code compatible with JDK 6 (and EOL version). Likewise, various assertions about compatibility with Java ME are made, but without any detail as to what's been tried & what the outcomes were. There are also various detailed issues with some of the NFRs - notably in the handling of time, which conforms to neither the existing Java APIs or to the Java 8 java.time API.

Full details & discussion of our concerns will be posted on the LJC blog. 

We appreciate the hard work that has gone into this spec by the EG & hope that our criticism is taken in the constructive manner it is intended - JSR 354 has a lot of potential, and we hope that with additional work, it can be made to achieve it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-20 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
The JSR354 specification submitted for Public Review to the PMO, version 0.7 (14th October 2013), had a lot of essential content removed from it (compared to its Early Draft Review), such that it was not usable (or testable) without extensive reference to implementation details. Since then, updated versions of the specification have been provided via the JSR's mailing list, though not via the PMO. The latest, version 0.8 (January 2014), (posted to https://java.net/projects/javamoney/lists/jcurrency_mail/archive/2014-01/message/4), has added content sufficient to address the shortcomings of 0.7. Our voting position is consequently made on consideration of this latter version of the specification, on the understanding that it has effectively superseded the former.
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 2014-01-21 Software AG voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-20 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-08 Nokia Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 Arm Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-11 Keil, Werner voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 Twitter, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 Freescale Semiconductor voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-09 Azul Systems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-09 MoroccoJUG voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-10 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-16 Credit Suisse voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-16 TOTVS voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-20 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 2014-01-20 SouJava voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-21 Oracle voted Yes with the following comment:
As noted on the JSR 354 community page (https://jcp.org/en/egc/view?id=354) there will be another public review draft that incorporates all the feedback from this public review. The current draft has several major flaws and does not provide a practical usable API for Java developers. We are casting a 'yes' vote with the hope and an expectation that the EG will continue its progress toward producing a consistent, simple, and complete API.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-17 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-20 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 V2COM voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 CloudBees voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-13 Gemalto M2M GmbH voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-01-21 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------