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 #102
JDOM 1.0
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2001-02-13 to: 2001-02-26

These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #102. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

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

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2001-02-26 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with the following comment:
The  currently available JDOM implementation is easy to program and also uses a conceptually simple object representation of XML documents. HP believes that  simplified XML interfaces will contribute to the increased adoption of XML as a vendor neutral standard.

However, HP also has concerns  that, as a JSR, JDOM will lead to a duplication of effort between JAXP (JSR 63) and JDOM  for example, in the definition of pluggability layers; and between the JCP and W3C  in the definition of interfaces and object representations for XML. This could potentially lead to competing Java APIs for XML or conflicts with the W3C XML standards, neither of which is desirable.

HP believes that the JDOM expert group should strive to ensure that JAXP continues to be the abstraction layer for working with multiple document representations, and should closely collaborate with the W3C XML working groups to ensure a conformance  with the W3C standards for XML interfaces and object representations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-23 Fujitsu Limited voted No with the following comment:
Fujitsu has some concern this specification may be compete with W3C DOM specification. Because JDOM is an updated version to W3C DOM, so this should be discussed within W3C first. We don't want to have two different DOM/JDOM specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-23 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
JDOM represents a good object-oriented approach to reading and writing XML documents and it is in the industry's best interest to capture this work.  Still, we must not overlook the fact that the central value of XML is standardization.  The definition of core XML standards, including the interfaces to an "XML parser" or "XML processor" and the object representation of an XML document is the responsibility of the W3C and its XML working groups. The W3C DOM working group is making progress in improving the standard interfaces to XML documents. The expert group for this JSR should work closely with the W3C to move these ideas into the W3C DOM standard and not create a competing alternative. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-23 Lea, Doug voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-21 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with the following comment:
In general we tend to prefer to avoid adding new APIs
to the Java platform which replicate the functionality
of existing APIs.

However JDOM does appear to be significantly easier
to use than the earlier APIs, so we believe it will
be a useful addition to the platform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-20 Borland Software Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-16 Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-15 Caldera Systems voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2001-02-14 Cisco Systems voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------