Draft: CSR Overview

[David Holmes]

On 19/04/2017 9:56 AM, joe darcy wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> On 4/18/2017 4:49 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> Generally reads well. Two minor comments ...
>>
>> On 19/04/2017 9:36 AM, joe darcy wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please review the CSR overview paragraphs below. These are intended to
>>> be listed on the landing page of the CSR wiki space.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Brian for comments on previous drafts and for suggested edits.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>> CSR Overview
>>>
>>> The Java platform enjoys both breadth of use and longevity; over two
>>> decades after its introduction, it remains one of the most popular
>>> programming platforms. A core tenet of the Java platform has been the
>>> importance of high-quality specifications, specifications favoring
>>> precision, explicitness, and completeness. The Java language, virtual
>>> machine, and API specifications are foundational documents for the Java
>>> ecosystem. The precision of these specifications, combined with a strong
>>> commitment to cross-release compatibly, allows applications and
>>> libraries to generally "just work" across releases.
>>>
>>> A key component to ensuring and maintaining the quality of the
>>> specification was the "CCC" process, originated at Sun, which was
>>> dedicated to looking after compatibility and specification concerns,
>>> aiming to balance stability with progress and help keep Java vibrant.
>>> The role played by the CCC process has now been transferred to the
>>> Compatibility & Specification Review (CSR) OpenJDK group, providing
>>> transparency and ensuring wider community input.
>>>
>>> The primary role of the CSR group is to review all changes to the JDK's
>>> exported interfaces, interfaces meaning the general protocol between the
>>> JDK and users of the JDK.
>>
>> The above sentence does not read correctly to me. And is it a protocol
>> or a contract?
>
> The term "contract" in the sense of "the technical contract for users of
> the JDK" is the meaning I wanted to convey. However, I used the term
> "protocol" because it has a more technical connotation and has more
> semantic distance from "contract" in the sense of licensing terms.
>
> Perhaps "general protocol" would be better as "general sets of protocols".

Ok. But the sentence structure is still problematic for me. Not sure 
whether it just needs a semi-colon instead of a comma, or two distinct 
sentences.

Cheers,
David

>>
>>> This review typically focuses on specification
>>> changes. However, implementation-only changes may also merit review if
>>> they have sufficiently large behavioral compatibility impact.
>>> Secondarily, the CSR is also a resource to provide feedback to engineers
>>> working on Java platform APIs. The CSR process fulfills an archival
>>> function as well, keeping stand-alone record of API and interface
>>> changes.
>>
>> s/record/records/
>>
>
> ACK; will fix before adding to the wiki.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe