These are the final results of the Community Draft Ballot for JSR #93. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

JSR93

StageCommunity Draft Ballot

Ballot durationJul 10, 2001 to Jul 16, 2001

Votes

SE/EE

Accenture

Apache Software Foundation

Apple Computer, Inc.

BEA Systems

Borland Software Corporation

Caldera Systems

Cisco Systems

Compaq Computer Corporation

Fujitsu Limited

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Lea, Doug

Oracle

Progress Software

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

WebGain

Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2001-07-16 Fujitsu Limited voted No with the following comment:
The JAXR mapping to UDDI defined in Appendix B is not intuitive and therefor it is hard to implement. Many developers who are familiar with UDDI will rather use UDDI-friendly API (if it is available) than JAXR. We think the Appendix B should be indicated as optional or non-normative in this JAXR specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-16 Oracle voted Yes with the following comment:
Oracle has considered the issues expressed in the ballots from BEA, Cisco and IBM.  In addition,  we question the effort versus benefit of attempting  to unify several independent (and possibly diverging) registry/repository access
standards.  These concerns notwithstanding, we believe that this divergence can be kept to a minimum and that the issues can be resolved.  Furthermore, we are encourage by the fact that the JAXR specification lead is very involved in molding the path taken by the ebXML community, and by the positive response of the expert group to the recent presentation on UDDI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-16 BEA Systems voted Yes with the following comment:
BEA is concerned that the current specification inadequately addresses UDDI and seems to be optimized for the yet to be finalized ebXML registry. We note that IBM and CISCO have expressed similar concerns. We have been in contact with the spec lead and have received assurances that these issues will be addressed prior to final review. We believe that it is critical that JAXR provide usable and full support for UDDI v1 and v2 registries.  Since full support is not included in Draft 0.5, due to both timeliness and intentional non-support, for a reasonable review the Public Review Draft must contain a clear description of which UDDI features and optimizations are not supported in the current draft together with rationale for each specific instance of non-supported UDDI functionality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-15 Lea, Doug voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-15 Progress Software voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-13 Cisco Systems voted Yes with the following comment:
Agreed that the APIs should reconcile the UDDI programming model - especially the version 2.0. I know that the team is working on this very issue.  As the specs, the info model and the apis are clear, it is easier now to influence and take corrective actions. One more suggestion I have (similar to the ones raised by BEA) is that the JSR definition should include reference to UDDI as well. 
-cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-13 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
IBM votes yes on this JSR with the understanding that the issues related to the usage of UDDI through JAXR currently being worked on by the expert team will be acceptably resolved.   IBM's position is that it is critical that JAXR provide usable and full support for UDDI registries.  The specification falls short of this at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-12 Caldera Systems voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-11 WebGain voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-07-10 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------