FYI, JSR 334 has reached proposed final draft

[joe.darcy at oracle.com]

Neal,

The coin-dev mailing list is not a venue with a service level agreement 
promising a two business day or less turn-around-time to requests of 
arbitrary size.

There has been bi-directional communication between the coin-dev 
community and the JSR 334 expert group since the expert group came into 
existence.  This communication has taken place not only because there is 
overlap in the membership of those bodies, but also because I've sent 
regular updates to coin-dev about changes in the specification and 
implementation and also made sure that the expert group considered 
issues raised on coin-dev.  For example, the changes to the null 
handling of try-with-resources earlier this year [1] came about after an 
investigation sparked by comments Remi sent to coin-dev [2].  Sometimes 
issues can only get addressed months after they are raised, such as the 
interplay between try-with-resources and InterruptedException. [3]

In the past on coin-dev, you're alluded to a set of detailed comments 
you have about the JSR 334 specification that you are choosing to 
withhold because the expert group archives are not publicly readable.  
While I respect your decision and the reasons for it, I am disappointed 
that Project Coin will not have time to benefit from your feedback 
before JSR 334 concludes and JDK 7 ships.

Regards,

-Joe

[1] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2011-February/003076.html
[2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2011-January/002960.html
[3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2011-March/003161.html

On 6/29/2011 7:17 AM, Neal Gafter wrote:
> Either that or the openjdk.java.net domain was down.  (it was down)
>
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>   
>> <crickets>
>>
>> </crickets>
>>
>> I read the lack of response as "we really just don't care.".  Which
>> says to me that getting the release out on schedule is seen as more
>> important than having confidence in the language changes going into
>> the release.
>>
>> Disappointing.
>>
>> On Friday, June 24, 2011, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> One longstanding concern with the try-with-resource statement was the software engineering implications of attempting to handle suppressed exceptions - compared to other proposed mechanisms to handle them, there is no obvious and scalable way with the currently proposed language construct to organize programs to handle them (the only proposed code organization techniques do not scale).  The response to this concern (since early coin days) from the proponents of the current specification was we should prototype the construct and see what patterns develop in code that uses the construct, and then adjust the specification based on that experience.
>>>
>>> That experience is necessary because it might not be possible to compatibly address problems that experience may expose.  The developers associated with project coin have no doubt written lots of new code using the feature and reported their experience attempting to handle suppressed exceptions to the jsr 224 mailing list, but we listeners on the coin list have unfortunately not gained the benefit of that discussion.  The discussion shown publicly on this list is insufficient in my mind to support an assumption that the current mechanism has passed scrutiny from this point of view.  Therefore I would ask the jsr 244 members to please summarize the relevant experience.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Neal
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:37 PM,  <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> FYI, the proposed final draft specification of JSR 334 can now be
>>> downloaded from:
>>> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/pfd/jsr334/index.html
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>