From mark at klomp.org  Fri Jan  2 09:24:43 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:24:43 +0100
Subject: hg pull - abort: HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
Message-ID: <1230888283.3595.5.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>

Hi,

Since new year (Happy New Year!) I get the following whenever trying to
pull from any repo at http://hg.openjdk.java.net/

  $ hg pull
  abort: HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error

Also using a browser to visit any page under http://hg.openjdk.java.net/
always results in an 500 - Internal Server Error. Could someone take a
look and see if they can kick the mercurial server back into action?

Thanks,

Mark



From linuxhippy at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 15:23:54 2009
From: linuxhippy at gmail.com (Clemens Eisserer)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:23:54 +0100
Subject: lcms and pisces quality [was: Re: Heads Up: JDK 7 Linux platforms
	moving to Fedora 9]
In-Reply-To: <494FECE3.3070409@Sun.COM>
References: <490938A9.9050201@sun.com> <494BF86E.7000400@sun.com>
	<1229720511.3626.12.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<494C1E7D.9090308@sun.com>
	<1229727394.3626.35.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<494C43CB.6050203@Sun.COM>
	<1229858811.3443.14.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<494FD735.5040504@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0812221035j72857e24p5d7f3cbd999cf093@mail.gmail.com>
	<494FECE3.3070409@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <194f62550901020723i48d9d17eq3716a837dcba22e7@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

> - Performance is not as good as the Ductus library
Yes, especially performance when antialising is enabled is really bad,
making pisces the bottleneck in the whole rendering pipeline.

- Clemens


From mr at sun.com  Fri Jan  2 22:39:38 2009
From: mr at sun.com (Mark Reinhold)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:39:38 -0800
Subject: hg pull - abort: HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error 
In-Reply-To: mark@klomp.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:24:43 +0100;
	<1230888283.3595.5.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> 
Message-ID: <20090102223938.7401FD045@callebaut.niobe.net>

> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:24:43 +0100
> From: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org>

> Since new year (Happy New Year!) I get the following whenever trying to
> pull from any repo at http://hg.openjdk.java.net/
> 
>   $ hg pull
>   abort: HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
> 
> Also using a browser to visit any page under http://hg.openjdk.java.net/
> always results in an 500 - Internal Server Error. Could someone take a
> look and see if they can kick the mercurial server back into action?

Fixed.

In future, for faster response please send web-server failure reports
to webmaster at openjdk.java.net.

- Mark


From mark at klomp.org  Mon Jan  5 15:01:35 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:35 +0100
Subject: Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7 and 8
	February 2009
In-Reply-To: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <1231167695.3499.57.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>

Hi all,

Our Fosdem meeting is approaching quickly.
http://fosdem.org/2009/ - February 7 and 8 in Brussels, Belgium.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING TALKS IS END OF THIS WEEK (see below).

This is what will be at our disposal:

- the room "AW1.120" with a capacity of 74 seats (in the building "AW"),
  - on Saturday 2009-02-07 from 12:00 to 18:00
  and
  - on Sunday 2009-02-08 from 09:00 to 17:00
- a video projector with VGA cable
- Internet connectivity (wifi A and B only, no wired)

This is what we need from you:

- Talk proposals and abstracts for activities.
  Please submit these BEFORE Saturday January 10!
  Either by emailing the Fosdem meeting committee at:
  fosdem2009 at developer.classpath.org
  Or adding your proposal to the wiki:
  http://wiki.debian.org/Java/DevJam/2009/Fosdem

Hoping to see you all there, you friendly ad hoc Fosdem meeting committee,

Dalibor Topic,
Andrew John Hughes,
Andrew Haley,
David Herron
and Mark Wielaard



From neal at gafter.com  Thu Jan  8 03:15:01 2009
From: neal at gafter.com (Neal Gafter)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:15:01 -0800
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
Message-ID: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>

The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year, is now
scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun positions
remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were from April
2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a draft
Constitution by the end of 2008.

Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see the
minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
Constitution?


From geir at pobox.com  Thu Jan  8 03:23:44 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:23:44 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0917FDA1-DFDD-447C-B89B-70003F90C7D9@pobox.com>

hey, I did volunteer... :)

On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Neal Gafter wrote:

> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,  
> is now
> scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun  
> positions
> remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were from  
> April
> 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a draft
> Constitution by the end of 2008.
>
> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see  
> the
> minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
> Constitution?



From mark at klomp.org  Thu Jan  8 14:15:03 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:15:03 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>

Hi Neal,

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,
> is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun
> positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were
> from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a
> draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
> 
> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see
> the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
> Constitution?

Good questions, and I don't know the answers.
May I ask a meta-question in return though?

What do we really expect from the governance board?

While it has been completely missing in action for the last half year, I
cannot say I have actually missed it. Things do seem to happen anyway.
What kind of issues do we as hackers really have that could be solved by
having an active governance board and a "constitution"?

Cheers,

Mark



From aph at redhat.com  Thu Jan  8 15:47:58 2009
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:47:58 +0000
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <4966202E.5010307@redhat.com>

Mark Wielaard wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,
>> is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun
>> positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were
>> from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a
>> draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
>>
>> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see
>> the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
>> Constitution?
> 
> Good questions, and I don't know the answers.
> May I ask a meta-question in return though?
> 
> What do we really expect from the governance board?
> 
> While it has been completely missing in action for the last half year, I
> cannot say I have actually missed it. Things do seem to happen anyway.
> What kind of issues do we as hackers really have that could be solved by
> having an active governance board and a "constitution"?

gcc itself is a model.  The steering committee only gets involved in
political matters and appoints maintainers.  The maintainers control
all the aspects of gcc itself, including features and releases.  In
theory the steering committee could resolve deadlocks between
maintainers, but that has AFAIAA never happened.  Most gcc maintainers
don't ever have to deal with the steering committee.  The steering
committee makes sure that policies to do with freedom and licensing
are followed.  It negotiates with the FSF when problems involving
free sofwtare policy arise.

So, the less the steering committee does, the better.  An active OpenJDK
governance board and a "constitution", it hopefully would not have affected
our work at all.  Their job is to keep out of the way of the people
doing real work.  They've been doing this quite well.

Andrew.


From frans at meruvian.org  Thu Jan  8 15:55:10 2009
From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:55:10 +0700
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <4966202E.5010307@redhat.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<4966202E.5010307@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3a71add70901080755g2d30a8b2tcc60bd6e1237db31@mail.gmail.com>

so what is the different between this and JCP :)

7 board are they sun's staff??

F

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>>> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,
>>> is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun
>>> positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were
>>> from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a
>>> draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
>>>
>>> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see
>>> the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
>>> Constitution?
>>
>> Good questions, and I don't know the answers.
>> May I ask a meta-question in return though?
>>
>> What do we really expect from the governance board?
>>
>> While it has been completely missing in action for the last half year, I
>> cannot say I have actually missed it. Things do seem to happen anyway.
>> What kind of issues do we as hackers really have that could be solved by
>> having an active governance board and a "constitution"?
>
> gcc itself is a model.  The steering committee only gets involved in
> political matters and appoints maintainers.  The maintainers control
> all the aspects of gcc itself, including features and releases.  In
> theory the steering committee could resolve deadlocks between
> maintainers, but that has AFAIAA never happened.  Most gcc maintainers
> don't ever have to deal with the steering committee.  The steering
> committee makes sure that policies to do with freedom and licensing
> are followed.  It negotiates with the FSF when problems involving
> free sofwtare policy arise.
>
> So, the less the steering committee does, the better.  An active OpenJDK
> governance board and a "constitution", it hopefully would not have affected
> our work at all.  Their job is to keep out of the way of the people
> doing real work.  They've been doing this quite well.
>
> Andrew.
>



-- 
-- 
Frans Thamura
Meruvian
One Stop Java and Enterprise OSS Provider
Technopreneurship, Training, Internship, Outsourcing and Corporate
Competency Center

Mobile: +62 855 7888 699
Blog & Profile: http://frans.thamura.info

Training JENI, Medallion (Alfresco, Liferay dan Compiere).. buruan...
URL: http://www.meruvian.com


From labradley at mindspring.com  Sun Jan 11 02:49:21 2009
From: labradley at mindspring.com (Larry Alkoff)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:49:21 -0600
Subject: Installing openjdk over Sun Java 6 stops printing of PDF files
Message-ID: <49695E31.3070709@mindspring.com>

I was using Sun Jave 6 but changed to openjdk because Sun Java 6 would 
not print using a program called Moneydance.

Openjdk prints just fine in Moneydance but will not print a PDF file as 
Sun Java did.

I think Sun Java is no longer active on my machine since
/usr/bin/java -version
says
   java version "1.6.0_0"
   OpenJDK  Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_0-b11)
   OpenJDK Server VM (build 1.6.0_0-b11, mixed mode)

How can I resolve this?

Using Kubuntu Linux 10.04-1.

Larry




From Artem.Ananiev at Sun.COM  Sun Jan 11 16:06:54 2009
From: Artem.Ananiev at Sun.COM (Artem Ananiev)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:06:54 +0300
Subject: [Fwd: <AWT Dev> [PATCH] Fix invalid PropertyChangeEvents from being
	propagated]
Message-ID: <496A191E.6040504@sun.com>

It looks like this patch is not related to AWT, however I don't know an 
alias for accessibility discussion. Forwarding to discuss at openjdk.

Artem

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: <AWT Dev> [PATCH] Fix invalid PropertyChangeEvents from being 
propagated
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:57:46 -0500
From: Omair Majid <omajid at redhat.com>
To: awt-dev at openjdk.java.net

Hi,

The current implementation of AccessibleContext propagates
PropertyChangeEvents that dont correspond do a change. This patch checks
that the new value and the old value are different before firing a
PropertyChangeEvent. This has been committed to icedtea as
http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea6/rev/136f40a0dae4.

Apologies in advance if this isn't the correct list to post this patch.

Cheers,

Omair

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: icedtea-a11y-property-change.patch
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090111/aecc423b/icedtea-a11y-property-change.patch>

From Phil.Race at Sun.COM  Sun Jan 11 20:41:51 2009
From: Phil.Race at Sun.COM (Phil Race)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:41:51 -0800
Subject: Installing openjdk over Sun Java 6 stops printing of PDF files
In-Reply-To: <49695E31.3070709@mindspring.com>
References: <49695E31.3070709@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <496A598F.8080006@sun.com>

Printing questions are best directed to 2d-dev.

There should be no difference between "Sun Java" and OpenJDK in the 
printing implementation.
If you see a difference perhaps its down to the specific version of "Sun 
Java", and probably
updating to 6 update 11 is worth trying. Perhaps you did this but I 
can't tell
since you didn't say. "would not print" is really too vague for me to 
usefully comment further.

Printing a PDF file is basically a matter of forwarding the PDF to CUPS, 
if it says it can handle PDF.
So it should be independent of anything other than your CUPS 
configuration, and hence I can't
think how that would have changed matters. But OpenJDK is a source-level 
'product', so its
at least possible if unlikely, that there's a problem specific to the 
binary provided by your distro.

If you need further details on this please post directly to 2d-dev, as 
this list (discuss) is
for more general discussions, not technology specific bug discussions.

-phil.

Larry Alkoff wrote:
> I was using Sun Jave 6 but changed to openjdk because Sun Java 6 would 
> not print using a program called Moneydance.
>
> Openjdk prints just fine in Moneydance but will not print a PDF file 
> as Sun Java did.
>
> I think Sun Java is no longer active on my machine since
> /usr/bin/java -version
> says
>   java version "1.6.0_0"
>   OpenJDK  Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_0-b11)
>   OpenJDK Server VM (build 1.6.0_0-b11, mixed mode)
>
> How can I resolve this?
>
> Using Kubuntu Linux 10.04-1.
>
> Larry
>
>



From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM  Sun Jan 11 21:01:19 2009
From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:01:19 +0100
Subject: Installing openjdk over Sun Java 6 stops printing of PDF files
In-Reply-To: <49695E31.3070709@mindspring.com>
References: <49695E31.3070709@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <496A5E1F.1060003@sun.com>

Larry Alkoff wrote:
> I think Sun Java is no longer active on my machine since
> /usr/bin/java -version
> says
>   java version "1.6.0_0"
>   OpenJDK  Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_0-b11)
>   OpenJDK Server VM (build 1.6.0_0-b11, mixed mode)
>
> How can I resolve this?
In Ubuntu you can switch between different installed implementations using
update-java-alternatives. An online accessible man page is at
http://man.root.cz/8/update-java-alternatives/

cheers,
dalibor topic

-- 
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland B?mer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring




From labradley at mindspring.com  Mon Jan 12 19:51:42 2009
From: labradley at mindspring.com (Larry Alkoff)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:51:42 -0600
Subject: Installing openjdk over Sun Java 6 stops printing of PDF files
In-Reply-To: <496A5E1F.1060003@sun.com>
References: <49695E31.3070709@mindspring.com> <496A5E1F.1060003@sun.com>
Message-ID: <496B9F4E.8050704@mindspring.com>

Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Larry Alkoff wrote:
>> I think Sun Java is no longer active on my machine since
>> /usr/bin/java -version
>> says
>>   java version "1.6.0_0"
>>   OpenJDK  Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_0-b11)
>>   OpenJDK Server VM (build 1.6.0_0-b11, mixed mode)
>>
>> How can I resolve this?
> In Ubuntu you can switch between different installed implementations using
> update-java-alternatives. An online accessible man page is at
> http://man.root.cz/8/update-java-alternatives/
> 
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> 

Thanks very much Dalibor.

I had just started reading the man update-alternatives and am glad there 
is a Java specific man page.  Although I've been using Linux for 10 
years now, I never even heard of 'update-alternatives'.  After a while 
I'll start understanding it <g>.

I've begun to suspect my problem has nothing to do with Java as CUPS 
doesn't use Java at all AFAIK and, not only can I not print an email 
attachment opened with kpdf, I can't even print saved pdf files with 
anything but evince.

Larry



From mark at klomp.org  Tue Jan 13 10:53:53 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:53:53 +0100
Subject: Program Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7 and 8
	February 2009
In-Reply-To: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <1231844033.2330.246.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi all,

We finally have a preliminary program for our libre java meeting at
Fosdem. There were a lot of submissions and we tried to do our best to
make an interesting schedule to discuss the wide spectrum of work that
is being done. Hope you like it:

Preliminarily Fosdem Libre-Java developer room program
------------------------------------------------------

Fosdem 2009, Brussels, Belgium
ULB Campus Solbosh - room AW1.120

Saturday, 7 February:

12:15 - 13:45 - OpenJDK status and future (1.5 hours, 30 min/talk)
Mark Reinhold & Joe Darcy
- The state of OpenJDK, OpenJDK6
- Project Jigsaw
- Small Language Changes

(15 minute break)

14:00 - 15:30 - IcedTea, Plugin and Jalimo (1.5 hours, 30 min/talk)
Lillian Angel, Deepak Bhole, Robert Schuster
- The state of IcedTea
- The IcedTea Plugin
- Jalimo: Cross-compiling OpenJDK using IcedTea and OpenEmbedded

(15 minute break)

15:45 - 17:45 - Graphics & Sound (2 hours, 30 min/talk)
Roman Kennke and Mario Torre, Guillaume Legris,
Clemens Eisserer, Karl Helgason
- Caciocavallo
- OpenGL ES to boost embedded Java
- XRender Java2D Pipeline
- Gervill Software Synthesizer

Sunday, 8 February:

10:00 - 11:30 VM Rumble (1.5 hours, 20 min/talk)
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Nicolas Geoffray,
Ian Rogers, Terrence Barr
- Porting a Java VM to a Hardware Accelerator
- VMKit
- Jikes RVM 3
- PhoneME CLDC and CDC VMs

(15 minute break)

11:45 - 13:15 It ain't Java (yet) (1.5 hours, 30 min/talk)
Matthias Schmidt, Remi Forax, Alex Buckley
- Groovy Grails for NetBeans
- JSR292 - Supporting Dynamically Typed Languages
- Towards a Universal VM

(45 minute lunch break)

14:00 - 15:30 - VMRumble continued (1.5 hours, 20 min/talk)
Robert Lougher, Michael Starzinger,
Levente Santha, Gary Benson
- JamVM
- Cacao
- JNode
- Zero/Shark

(15 minute break)

15:45 - 17:00 Distros/Community/Infra/Legal (1.25 hours, 24 min/talk)
Petteri Raty, Ray Gans, Terrance Barr
- Recruiting people to FOSS Java projects (distros/Gentoo)
- OpenJDK Community Priorities
- Pure GPL - Is it still up to date


We will soon publish the full final program with the abstracts of each
talk. Hoping to see you all there, your friendly ad hoc Fosdem meeting
committee,

Dalibor Topic,
Andrew John Hughes,
Andrew Haley,
David Herron
and Mark Wielaard



From neal at gafter.com  Thu Jan 15 18:58:14 2009
From: neal at gafter.com (Neal Gafter)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:58:14 -0800
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>

The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the defacto
mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP used to play that
role, but there has been little activity in forming a JSR for Java SE 7 in
the past few years.  I've noticed that openjdk7 is more and more being
called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even though it doesn't implement a platform
specification approved by the JCP.  If openjdk is to become the mechanism by
which features are added to the platform, it would be better for the
governance model to acknowledge and support that.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:

> Hi Neal,
>
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
> > The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,
> > is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun
> > positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were
> > from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a
> > draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
> >
> > Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see
> > the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
> > Constitution?
>
> Good questions, and I don't know the answers.
> May I ask a meta-question in return though?
>
> What do we really expect from the governance board?
>
> While it has been completely missing in action for the last half year, I
> cannot say I have actually missed it. Things do seem to happen anyway.
> What kind of issues do we as hackers really have that could be solved by
> having an active governance board and a "constitution"?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
>


From geir at pobox.com  Thu Jan 15 19:02:51 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:02:51 -0800
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8BC9725A-76B3-48EC-B6C6-1106995C886E@pobox.com>

I've been worried about this for a while.

geir

On Jan 15, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Neal Gafter wrote:

> The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the  
> defacto
> mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP used to  
> play that
> role, but there has been little activity in forming a JSR for Java  
> SE 7 in
> the past few years.  I've noticed that openjdk7 is more and more being
> called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even though it doesn't implement a platform
> specification approved by the JCP.  If openjdk is to become the  
> mechanism by
> which features are added to the platform, it would be better for the
> governance model to acknowledge and support that.
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Neal,
>>
>> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>>> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,
>>> is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun
>>> positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes  
>>> were
>>> from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive  
>>> for a
>>> draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
>>>
>>> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see
>>> the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
>>> Constitution?
>>
>> Good questions, and I don't know the answers.
>> May I ask a meta-question in return though?
>>
>> What do we really expect from the governance board?
>>
>> While it has been completely missing in action for the last half  
>> year, I
>> cannot say I have actually missed it. Things do seem to happen  
>> anyway.
>> What kind of issues do we as hackers really have that could be  
>> solved by
>> having an active governance board and a "constitution"?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Thu Jan 15 21:02:04 2009
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:02:04 +0000
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17c6771e0901151302m5f88beabp18e90b30b9db4bd0@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/15 Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com>:
> The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the defacto
> mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP used to play that
> role, but there has been little activity in forming a JSR for Java SE 7 in
> the past few years.  I've noticed that openjdk7 is more and more being
> called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even though it doesn't implement a platform
> specification approved by the JCP.  If openjdk is to become the mechanism by
> which features are added to the platform, it would be better for the
> governance model to acknowledge and support that.
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Neal,
>>
>> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>> > The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year,
>> > is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun
>> > positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting minutes were
>> > from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a
>> > draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
>> >
>> > Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please see
>> > the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the
>> > Constitution?
>>
>> Good questions, and I don't know the answers.
>> May I ask a meta-question in return though?
>>
>> What do we really expect from the governance board?
>>
>> While it has been completely missing in action for the last half year, I
>> cannot say I have actually missed it. Things do seem to happen anyway.
>> What kind of issues do we as hackers really have that could be solved by
>> having an active governance board and a "constitution"?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>

If that turns out to be true, such a process might actually be even
more closed than the current JCP process. Although using a Free
codebase with the intention of community participation seems the
intention, and would actually make things better, so far the reality
seems to be that what ends up in OpenJDK7 is decided behind closed
doors at Sun.
-- 
Andrew :-)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8


From mark at klomp.org  Fri Jan 16 00:11:53 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:11:53 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>

Hi Neal,

On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:58 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
> The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the
> defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP
> used to play that role, but there has been little activity in forming
> a JSR for Java SE 7 in the past few years.  I've noticed that openjdk7
> is more and more being called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even though it
> doesn't implement a platform specification approved by the JCP.  If
> openjdk is to become the mechanism by which features are added to the
> platform, it would be better for the governance model to acknowledge
> and support that.

That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Currently we act
as if the JCP has some kind of status that restricts certain kinds of
modifications to public APIs. But this has been kind of a problem since
access to JSRs and JCKs is not guaranteed to be free of restrictions
that are incompatible with our way of working in a public and open free
software project. (See the multiple months long [still unresolved!]
thread on pkg-distro-dev about the inability to use a lot of official
JSR documents for work on OpenJDK.)

If we can get a smoother way of working on standards through OpenJDK
that would indeed be very welcome. But does indeed need to come with
some kind of guide lines of how we would like to handle such
responsibilities.

Cheers,

Mark



From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM  Fri Jan 16 03:11:35 2009
From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:11:35 -0800
Subject: JDK 7 build 43  is available at the openjdk.java.net website
Message-ID: <496FFAE7.3030709@Sun.COM>


The OpenJDK source is available at:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/848e684279d2

The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 43 are 
available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source 
Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)

Summary of changes:
http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b43.html


-Xiomara



From aph at redhat.com  Fri Jan 16 09:24:43 2009
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:24:43 +0000
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4970525B.7000401@redhat.com>

Neal Gafter wrote:

>> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:

>>> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a
>>> year, is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its
>>> non-Sun positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting
>>> minutes were from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB
>>> would strive for a draft Constitution by the end of 2008.

>>> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please
>>> see the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report
>>> on the Constitution?

> The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the
> defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP
> used to play that role, but there has been little activity in
> forming a JSR for Java SE 7 in the past few years.  I've noticed
> that openjdk7 is more and more being called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even
> though it doesn't implement a platform specification approved by the
> JCP.  If openjdk is to become the mechanism by which features are
> added to the platform,

I don't see how that can happen.  For Java SE 7 to be released there
must be a platform specification, and there must be a TCK.  openjdk7
is a bunch of packages slated for Java SE 7 that may or may not get to
be in the platform.

> it would be better for the governance model to acknowledge and support that.

It would, yes, but it would be a huge change.

In the past there have undoubtedly been developments very much like
the openjdk7 tree, where platform integration has proceeded prior to
the formal platform specification.  This is essential: you need to
make sure that a design works in a reasonable way before its
specification is finalized.  The only difference now is that the
openjdk7 tree is open.

Andrew.


From volker.simonis at gmail.com  Fri Jan 16 14:01:32 2009
From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:01:32 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <4970525B.7000401@redhat.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<4970525B.7000401@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <d65861880901160601w2a1035g591d53f22d1deb6f@mail.gmail.com>

What I find most astonishing on this thread is that apparently neither
the Governance Board members nor a Sun representative have considered
it important enough to comment or respond. Strange...

On 1/16/09, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> Neal Gafter wrote:
>
>  >> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>
>  >>> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a
>  >>> year, is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its
>  >>> non-Sun positions remaining unfilled.  The last published meeting
>  >>> minutes were from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB
>  >>> would strive for a draft Constitution by the end of 2008.
>
>  >>> Who are the seven members of the governing board?  Can we please
>  >>> see the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report
>  >>> on the Constitution?
>
>
> > The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the
>  > defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP
>  > used to play that role, but there has been little activity in
>  > forming a JSR for Java SE 7 in the past few years.  I've noticed
>  > that openjdk7 is more and more being called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even
>  > though it doesn't implement a platform specification approved by the
>  > JCP.  If openjdk is to become the mechanism by which features are
>  > added to the platform,
>
>
> I don't see how that can happen.  For Java SE 7 to be released there
>  must be a platform specification, and there must be a TCK.  openjdk7
>  is a bunch of packages slated for Java SE 7 that may or may not get to
>  be in the platform.
>
>
>  > it would be better for the governance model to acknowledge and support that.
>
>
> It would, yes, but it would be a huge change.
>
>  In the past there have undoubtedly been developments very much like
>  the openjdk7 tree, where platform integration has proceeded prior to
>  the formal platform specification.  This is essential: you need to
>  make sure that a design works in a reasonable way before its
>  specification is finalized.  The only difference now is that the
>  openjdk7 tree is open.
>
>
>  Andrew.
>


From dl at cs.oswego.edu  Fri Jan 16 14:27:26 2009
From: dl at cs.oswego.edu (Doug Lea)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:27:26 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4970994E.6070303@cs.oswego.edu>

Neal Gafter wrote:
> The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the 
> defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP used 
> to play that role, but there has been little activity in forming a JSR 
> for Java SE 7 in the past few years. 

There has been some (sadly unavoidable) lack of transparency
in JCP that has given many people this mis-impression. The
JCP and its Executive Committee (that I am on) very much wants
the JCP to play the central role in driving major releases.
However, it has been stuck for a long while in policy impasses
(such as disputes over terms of TCK tests involving undisclosable
legal matters) that have made it impossible to approve a Java7
Release JSR. Everyone involved hopes that these are resolved soon.
And many of us have invested a fair amount of time trying
to help resolve them.

In the absence of resolution, Java7 plans have been left in a
long gestation mode. Spec leads and contributors (not just
at Sun) involved with changes and additions likely to make it in
to a next major release seem to be proceeding with plans, but
without an identifiable central coordination point. Placing
likely Java7 release contributions in openJDK is a convenient
way to maintain progress in the mean time, and presence
of code in openJDK repositories is one good indication of
some of functionality that some of them intend to include.

When a Java7 Release JSR can be proposed, it will
probably be able proceed quickly. Until then, the whole
process has an unfortunate shadowy-cabal appearance,
which does indeed suck.

-Doug


From openjdk at jazillian.com  Fri Jan 16 18:09:19 2009
From: openjdk at jazillian.com (Andy Tripp)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:09:19 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <55140B9E-9818-4C49-AF90-4217CBE977C4@Sun.COM>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>	<4966202E.5010307@redhat.com>
	<55140B9E-9818-4C49-AF90-4217CBE977C4@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <4970CD4F.1070306@jazillian.com>

Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 16:47, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> So, the less the steering committee does, the better.  An active OpenJDK
>> governance board and a "constitution", it hopefully would not have 
>> affected
>> our work at all.  Their job is to keep out of the way of the people
>> doing real work.  They've been doing this quite well.
> 
> I agree. I'm not 100% happy that there have been no meetings, but I do 
> feel that the overall goal we agreed - to make sure that any kind of 
> committee would stay out of the way of the actual work, and that we'd 
> wait until it was clear what the need was until acting - still seems the 
> right one and seems to have been achieved by default. 

I thought the overall goal of the GB was to create a constitution, not
"stay out of the way of actual work". In fact, looking again at the OpenJDK
charter, it's quite clear that that's the purpose of the GB. You say
"we agreed" above, and assuming the "we" is the GB, I don't see any
big discussion in the meeting minutes about "staying out of the way".

The meeting minutes seem to indicate serious dedication to creating a
constitution. There's no indication there that having no further meetings
and making no progress on a constitution might be a reasonable outcome.

Is there any documentation that the GB ever really agreed that
"we'd wait until it was clear what the need was"? Documented or not,
I'm having a lot of trouble believing that the GB really agreed on this.

> It may well be 
> smart to keep going like this rather than create some document for the 
> sake of having it.

So you create a GB who's main purposes are to create a constitution and
resolve disputes, and now apparently the thinking is that there's no need for
a constitution, so it's OK that the GB never produced anything? What has changed
so that a constitution is no longer needed? Who exactly is the "we"
that doesn't think a constitution is needed and that no GB meetings are needed?

And most importantly, doesn't it seem like there's now an issue that requires
the GB and/or a constitution...namely, the issue of who decides what goes
into "the platform" - openJDK or the JCP? Is the JCP dead, and Neal should
just just try to get closures into the openJDK code? Or is the JCP alive,
and will ensure that openJDK code won't leak into JDK without a JSR?

I think it's time the GB either do what it's supposed to do, or officially
disband and let Java drift where it may. It's just silly to have a group
that does nothing and considers that OK because "we" agreed that it should
"stay out of the way".

Andy


From mr at sun.com  Fri Jan 16 22:55:51 2009
From: mr at sun.com (Mark Reinhold)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:55:51 -0800
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution 
In-Reply-To: neal@gafter.com; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:15:01 PST;
	<15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <20090116225551.0858D28CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>

The OpenJDK Governance Board (GB) has not met since last April because
Sun has not yet appointed anyone to the two open GB seats.  Sun and the
GB considered various candidates early on but then the effort faded into
the background over the summer in the face of more pressing issues.

Without a full GB, there has been no further work on the Constitution.

In the meantime, as others have noted, work is getting done and the
OpenJDK Community is, slowly, expanding.

It is definitely the view of the current GB Members that the GB is, and
ought to be, more of a legislative and judiciary body than an executive.
The GB exists to define the high-level processes by which the Community
operates, and to adjudicate disputes when they arise.  It should never,
ever be in the position of making technical decisions.  I fully expect
this view to be codified in the Constitution.

With regard to the JCP, as Doug observed there is not yet a Java SE 7
Platform JSR due to a policy impasse within the Executive Committee.
Sun will submit such a JSR as soon as that issue is resolved.  In the
meantime the JDK 7 Project here in the OpenJDK Community will move
forward to prototype some features and enhancements that might -- or
might not -- wind up in the SE 7 Platform Specification.

Some of these improvements will come from outside Sun.  Several major
contributions from non-Sun developers are already lined up, and we'll
shortly announce a process by which anyone can propose a new feature.
Stay tuned.

- Mark


From geir at pobox.com  Sat Jan 17 03:04:03 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:04:03 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution 
In-Reply-To: <20090116225551.0858D28CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20090116225551.0858D28CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <4D6FFFA0-FDF7-49C3-92B7-638F45A9509B@pobox.com>


On Jan 16, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:

> The OpenJDK Governance Board (GB) has not met since last April because
> Sun has not yet appointed anyone to the two open GB seats.  Sun and  
> the
> GB considered various candidates early on but then the effort faded  
> into
> the background over the summer in the face of more pressing issues.

More pressing for whom?  the community or Sun?

I still volunteer.

>
>
> Without a full GB, there has been no further work on the Constitution.
>
> In the meantime, as others have noted, work is getting done and the
> OpenJDK Community is, slowly, expanding.
>
> It is definitely the view of the current GB Members that the GB is,  
> and
> ought to be, more of a legislative and judiciary body than an  
> executive.
> The GB exists to define the high-level processes by which the  
> Community
> operates, and to adjudicate disputes when they arise.  It should  
> never,
> ever be in the position of making technical decisions.  I fully expect
> this view to be codified in the Constitution.
>
> With regard to the JCP, as Doug observed there is not yet a Java SE 7
> Platform JSR due to a policy impasse within the Executive Committee.

What policy impasse is that, Mark? :)

>
> Sun will submit such a JSR as soon as that issue is resolved.  In the
> meantime the JDK 7 Project here in the OpenJDK Community will move
> forward to prototype some features and enhancements that might -- or
> might not -- wind up in the SE 7 Platform Specification.
>
> Some of these improvements will come from outside Sun.  Several major
> contributions from non-Sun developers are already lined up, and we'll
> shortly announce a process by which anyone can propose a new feature.
> Stay tuned.
>
> - Mark



From geir at pobox.com  Sat Jan 17 11:24:07 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:24:07 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <4970994E.6070303@cs.oswego.edu>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<4970994E.6070303@cs.oswego.edu>
Message-ID: <09CBF519-3A40-402B-8EFC-1074B9B2C148@pobox.com>


On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
>
> When a Java7 Release JSR can be proposed, it will
> probably be able proceed quickly. Until then, the whole
> process has an unfortunate shadowy-cabal appearance,
> which does indeed suck.

The process may have that appearance because for all practical  
purposes, it is a "shadowy-cabal".

We're stuck talking about it in public using euphemisms like "policy  
impasse".

Bernie Madoff isn't an alleged crook!  He's engaged in a "policy  
impasse" with the U.S. Govt.

geir


From geir at pobox.com  Sat Jan 17 11:40:01 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:40:01 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>


On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi Neal,
>
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:58 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>> The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the
>> defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform.  The JCP
>> used to play that role, but there has been little activity in forming
>> a JSR for Java SE 7 in the past few years.  I've noticed that  
>> openjdk7
>> is more and more being called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even though it
>> doesn't implement a platform specification approved by the JCP.  If
>> openjdk is to become the mechanism by which features are added to the
>> platform, it would be better for the governance model to acknowledge
>> and support that.
>
> That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Currently we  
> act
> as if the JCP has some kind of status that restricts certain kinds of
> modifications to public APIs.

Yes, the JCP has *exactly* that status - public APIs must comply with  
the Java SE specification as produced by the expert group, or else the  
software is not Java (or, in deference to Sun's ownership of the Java  
trademark, "Java compatible").  I think this reliable consistency is  
one of the great things about Java The Ecosystem (as well as Java the  
Platform).

The downside is that the spec lead has tremendous control over a given  
technology, and right now, Sun's business issues are getting in the  
way of progress for the Java platform, and it's hurting the rest of  
us.  Self-interest is an an entirely rational thing to do for a  
publicly-traded company, but given the damage it's causing the rest of  
us, it shows in very stark light the distance we still have to go  
before this is an open and safe ecosystem in which to work.


> But this has been kind of a problem since
> access to JSRs and JCKs is not guaranteed to be free of restrictions
> that are incompatible with our way of working in a public and open  
> free
> software project.

It turns out that's the least of your problems.  As you know, the ASF  
is engaged in what is now a multi-year battle to get the Java SE 5 TCK  
under terms compatible with being able to distribute the resulting  
tested binary under an open source license.

On the surface, this may appear to be tangential to the problem of  
OpenJDK governance, but all of it is related.

Java will never really be free until we get past all of this.  Please  
inform RMS.

geir




From mark at klomp.org  Sat Jan 17 13:52:57 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:52:57 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>

Hi Geir,

On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 06:40 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Currently we  
> > act
> > as if the JCP has some kind of status that restricts certain kinds of
> > modifications to public APIs.
> 
> Yes, the JCP has *exactly* that status - public APIs must comply with  
> the Java SE specification as produced by the expert group, or else the  
> software is not Java (or, in deference to Sun's ownership of the Java  
> trademark, "Java compatible").  I think this reliable consistency is  
> one of the great things about Java The Ecosystem (as well as Java the  
> Platform).

Sure, consistency and having unambiguous, strong standards are great for
everybody. No argument there. But if the rules around (producing) those
standards are counter to the spirit of free software then it takes away
from the user instead of adding value. We have to strive for public,
open free specifications with testsuites that are free for everybody to
use to verify any implementation's claim of compatibility with such
standards. I am not convinced the current state of the JCP encourages
that though. If through OpenJDK we can improve the process of producing
specs, the reference implementation and free test suites, then I am all
for it.

> > But this has been kind of a problem since
> > access to JSRs and JCKs is not guaranteed to be free of restrictions
> > that are incompatible with our way of working in a public and open  
> > free software project.
> 
> It turns out that's the least of your problems.

Yes, the biggest problem was getting a full free reference platform for
the Java platform. Although we worked very hard on that through the
various efforts around GNU Classpath and friends, gcj, kaffe, and
finally with harmony, it cannot be denied that Sun's liberation of
almost all of their core platform implementation code base helped
enormously. And doing it in a way that united their effort with almost
all of the existing libre-java community can only be given the highest
praise.

I might be highly critical about some of the processes, the non-open
specs, the TCK being non-free and only available under a NDA forcing
people to work in secret cut of from the rest of the community (but
again high praise for Sun coming up with something that at least lets
people produce Free Software and doesn't get in the way of releasing the
results under the GPL) and the non-transparent trademark rules. But I do
realize that the biggest and most important hurdle has been taken now.
That we are slowly but surely creating a community that produces a fully
free Java platform together, even if some of the steps forward might be
still tricky.

>   As you know, the ASF  
> is engaged in what is now a multi-year battle to get the Java SE 5 TCK  
> under terms compatible with being able to distribute the resulting  
> tested binary under an open source license.

Yes, we started that process 12 years ago, and even before we started
Harmony we tried to unite the free java groups and get access to old
TCKs. http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/ One of the reasons that I was one
of the Harmony founders, which I and lots of others hoped would be the
ultimate unification of all the java-libre efforts that would not only
bring us a solid, full, free java implementation shared by lots of
groups, but also would give us the political cloud with the JCP
community. We all know how that ended. As I said before I think your
actions were not helpful.
http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary/2007/04/21/openjck/

I hope we can move past that sad history though and focus on the future.
Now that we have a full free Java compatible platform for Java SE 6 lets
focus on making the processes for getting the same for Java SE 7 and not
just having free code, but also open processes (including open and free
specifications and finally a free TCK!) instead of harping on the past
failures.

> Java will never really be free until we get past all of this.  Please  
> inform RMS.

You seem hung up on the term Java(TM). Yes, it would be great if we had
a more open, transparent and Free Software compatible way of handling
the trademark issue. But don't confuse naming with code. The code is all
out there, under free software licenses. And even some binaries produced
have been certified as passing the JCK - in a way that is less from
ideal seeing the TCK itself isn't Free Software, but the resulting code
is fully free software. I do talk with RMS from time to time and he
knows my position, goals and the work that still has to be done.

Cheers,

Mark



From geir at pobox.com  Sat Jan 17 14:53:39 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:53:39 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
	<1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>


On Jan 17, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi Geir,
>
> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 06:40 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Currently we
>>> act
>>> as if the JCP has some kind of status that restricts certain kinds  
>>> of
>>> modifications to public APIs.
>>
>> Yes, the JCP has *exactly* that status - public APIs must comply with
>> the Java SE specification as produced by the expert group, or else  
>> the
>> software is not Java (or, in deference to Sun's ownership of the Java
>> trademark, "Java compatible").  I think this reliable consistency is
>> one of the great things about Java The Ecosystem (as well as Java the
>> Platform).
>
> Sure, consistency and having unambiguous, strong standards are great  
> for
> everybody. No argument there. But if the rules around (producing)  
> those
> standards are counter to the spirit of free software then it takes  
> away
> from the user instead of adding value. We have to strive for public,
> open free specifications with testsuites that are free for everybody  
> to
> use to verify any implementation's claim of compatibility with such
> standards. I am not convinced the current state of the JCP encourages
> that though.

What do you think we've been fighting for at the ASF for the last 8  
years, and specifically, the last 2 for the JCK?  The ASF put it's  
money where it's mouth was, and engaged directly, worked hard, and  
produced tangible changes in the JCP.


> If through OpenJDK we can improve the process of producing
> specs, the reference implementation and free test suites, then I am  
> all
> for it.

The irony is that things have gotten worse since OpenJDK was created -  
not because of OpenJDK, but the timing was coincidental with the ASF  
shining a light on the last dark crevice of JCP licensing, namely  
Sun's approach to Java SE TCK licensing.

You might argue that it's better, because you can get the TCK for use  
in OpenJDK and derivatives, but those license terms - namely for use  
only in code that is substantially derived from the OpenJDK code base  
and must be under the GPL 2.0 - are counter to the spirit and letter  
of open source/free software, and also counter to the letter and  
spirit of the JSPA, the rules that govern the JCP.

Hilarious, in a bitter and dark kind of way.


>
>
>>> But this has been kind of a problem since
>>> access to JSRs and JCKs is not guaranteed to be free of restrictions
>>> that are incompatible with our way of working in a public and open
>>> free software project.
>>
>> It turns out that's the least of your problems.
>
> Yes, the biggest problem was getting a full free reference platform  
> for
> the Java platform. Although we worked very hard on that through the
> various efforts around GNU Classpath and friends, gcj, kaffe, and
> finally with harmony, it cannot be denied that Sun's liberation of
> almost all of their core platform implementation code base helped
> enormously. And doing it in a way that united their effort with almost
> all of the existing libre-java community can only be given the highest
> praise.

Yeah.  Something like that.

Another view is that they masterfully split the free/libre/open java  
community, exploiting long-standing license fault-lines, in order to  
counteract the threat that Harmony represented - a quality, performant  
open source implementation with an *open, free community* under a  
permissive license.

>
>
> I might be highly critical about some of the processes, the non-open
> specs, the TCK being non-free and only available under a NDA forcing
> people to work in secret cut of from the rest of the community (but
> again high praise for Sun coming up with something that at least lets
> people produce Free Software and doesn't get in the way of releasing  
> the
> results under the GPL) and the non-transparent trademark rules.

And you're missing the biggest problem here - I'm not sure if its  
because you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore it.  You  
certainly are aware of it.


> But I do
> realize that the biggest and most important hurdle has been taken now.
> That we are slowly but surely creating a community that produces a  
> fully
> free Java platform together, even if some of the steps forward might  
> be
> still tricky.
>
>>  As you know, the ASF
>> is engaged in what is now a multi-year battle to get the Java SE 5  
>> TCK
>> under terms compatible with being able to distribute the resulting
>> tested binary under an open source license.
>
> Yes, we started that process 12 years ago, and even before we started
> Harmony we tried to unite the free java groups and get access to old
> TCKs. http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/ One of the reasons that I was  
> one
> of the Harmony founders, which I and lots of others hoped would be the
> ultimate unification of all the java-libre efforts that would not only
> bring us a solid, full, free java implementation shared by lots of
> groups, but also would give us the political cloud with the JCP
> community. We all know how that ended. As I said before I think your
> actions were not helpful.
> http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary/2007/04/21/openjck/

I know.  And I think you have no clear idea what's going on.    You  
don't seem to understand that it wasn't "my" actions, but the actions  
of the Apache Software Foundation.

Your engagement in the first few weeks on the Harmony lists was nice -  
we really tried to get you engaged in the project so we could work  
together with GNU Classpath.

But it didn't work out, mainly because you never could consider  
yourself producing software under the AL because of your views towards  
"software hoarding", ironic in retrospect given your willingness to  
provide IP to Sun, who not only sells it to "software hoarders" but  
who is openly using it's IP to limit the progress of open source  
project.  And if you're not providing code, you're providing "air- 
cover" by letting them point to openjdk as a model open free software  
community.

>
>
> I hope we can move past that sad history though and focus on the  
> future.
> Now that we have a full free Java compatible platform for Java SE 6  
> lets
> focus on making the processes for getting the same for Java SE 7 and  
> not
> just having free code, but also open processes (including open and  
> free
> specifications and finally a free TCK!) instead of harping on the past
> failures.

The problem with this perspective is that it's not a historical  
problem, something from a past when perspectives and social mores were  
different. It's the present - it's still going on.

We're not fighting the "last war" here - Apache Harmony is *still*  
unable to get a license for the TCK for Java SE.  Sun is genuinely  
scared of what would happen if there was an actual free-as-in-freedom  
implementation of Java out there under a community they didn't have a  
stranglehold over.

So whatever problems you see has historical actually exists, and is  
still very real and harmful for another group of people with the same  
interests and aspirations as you, who managed to actually bring an  
independent implementation together to the point of being ready for  
compatibility testing.

>
>
>> Java will never really be free until we get past all of this.  Please
>> inform RMS.
>
> You seem hung up on the term Java(TM).

It is why we're here.  it's what the J in OpenJDK stands for.

> Yes, it would be great if we had
> a more open, transparent and Free Software compatible way of handling
> the trademark issue.

I don't care about the trademark issue.  It's orthogonal to open  
source - and in my experience, Sun has actually been very reasonable  
w/ trademark licensing wrt open source projects that are compatible  
with the spec they implement.  We've had no problem of the years at  
the ASF.

> But don't confuse naming with code. The code is all
> out there, under free software licenses. And even some binaries  
> produced
> have been certified as passing the JCK - in a way that is less from
> ideal seeing the TCK itself isn't Free Software, but the resulting  
> code
> is fully free software. I do talk with RMS from time to time and he
> knows my position, goals and the work that still has to be done.

Yeah, I think you just don't understand what's going on.  Cheers back.

geir



>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>



From mark at klomp.org  Sat Jan 17 21:07:18 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:07:18 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
	<1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>

Hi Geir,

On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 09:53 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> What do you think we've been fighting for at the ASF for the last 8  
> years, and specifically, the last 2 for the JCK?

I appreciate you trying to fight. And trying to change things from
within the JCP. Which is indeed brave. You share that optimism with
Dalibor who also always urges to not burn down that which produces bad
results and be positive that change can happen. I might have become to
cynical with the results not being free, open and community friendly
over that many years, that I focus my efforts there where I can actually
produce free code in the open. You risk legitimating an institution
which doesn't guarantee software freedom without achieving any of your
goals. And alienating the community that you say you are fighting for
because you hide any talks and results behind the shadowy-cabal that you
have become part of.

> > If through OpenJDK we can improve the process of producing
> > specs, the reference implementation and free test suites, then I am  
> > all for it.
>
> You might argue that it's better, because you can get the TCK for use  
> in OpenJDK and derivatives

It is better because it is under terms that allow publishing any code
that is tested and/or passes with it under a free software license that
guarantees that the source, and not unimportantly, all patent claims
must be shared under reciprocal terms, without any restrictions on use
for any purpose by any user.

That said the current terms are certainly not good enough. Having the
TCK as proprietary software is bad, having people cut of from the rest
of the community through NDAs is anti-social and not giving anybody the
change to test any implementation as you wish is just very unfair and
unproductive.

> Another view is that they masterfully split the free/libre/open java  
> community, exploiting long-standing license fault-lines, in order to  
> counteract the threat that Harmony represented - a quality, performant  
> open source implementation with an *open, free community* under a  
> permissive license.

We started Harmony to unite the various free java efforts that we were
working on in the hope we could also work closer with the Apache
community. That it then turned out to split the community with an
apache-only effort was never what I, and other founders, like Dalibor
and Tom, intended it to be. I am glad Sun talked to the libre-java
community before starting their own effort and kept us in the loop about
their plans and desires to work together. I am not saying the
cooperation is perfect, there is a lot to improve. But we keep talking
and trying to work together. Our renewed Fosdem talks cooperation is
very indicative of that effort, and I am happy that everybody will take
the time again to come and exchange views.

> But it didn't work out, mainly because you never could consider  
> yourself producing software under the AL because of your views towards  
> "software hoarding"

No, creating an alternative code base incompatible with almost all the
existing efforts and not considering working together on a shared common
interface to all the components that 30 existing runtimes, class
libraries, jits, compilers, etc. already were using and working on
together was what made the harmony effort fail. I might not like
"software hoarding", and I certainly prefer using copyleft licenses that
are fairly reciprocal, but being expressly incompatible was what I
objected to. Any license that would be compatible with what the exiting
communities were using would have been OK. Luckily then the FSF did
solve a lot of those issue though by finally upgrading the GPL and
making compatibility an explicit goal. Please do reread "Toward a Free
Java" http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/ if you don't get what the history
is here.

> And if you're not providing code, you're providing "air- 
> cover" by letting them point to openjdk as a model open free software  
> community.

It is an open free software community, even though some derivatives are
not fully free software. Something I greatly regret. And you will always
see me being very critical of that and help out any alternative effort
to work around that. And that works. There has never been any attempt to
stifle anybody or any group creating any derivative of the code, whether
it be IcedTea as shipped most GNU/Linux distros now, nor any of the
other hybrid implementations
http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/06/openjdk-hybrids

> So whatever problems you see has historical actually exists, and is  
> still very real and harmful for another group of people with the same
> interests and aspirations as you, who managed to actually bring an  
> independent implementation together to the point of being ready for  
> compatibility testing.

Sure, I know. We had this back in 2005 already:
http://advogato.org/person/robilad/diary/64.html
And even though Dalibor and Onno pushed for it, we never succeeded back
then with 1.5. Keeping chasing after these old issues instead of
focusing on the future seems not very productive though. There are
indeed still serious issues with non-open specs and anti-social TCK
usage restrictions for 1.6 (I would say the processes around them are
not really workable right now). But we do have free implementations now.

Instead, lets work together on fixing these issues going forward for
1.7, and make sure that we will not just have free code as reference
implementation, but also with a fully free community process we all seem
to want. Either through the JCP if you feel that can still be saved, or
by going around it if it ends up not being able to produce results that
are free for all.

Cheers,

Mark



From david.gilbert at object-refinery.com  Mon Jan 19 07:41:56 2009
From: david.gilbert at object-refinery.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:41:56 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <4D6FFFA0-FDF7-49C3-92B7-638F45A9509B@pobox.com>
References: <20090116225551.0858D28CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<4D6FFFA0-FDF7-49C3-92B7-638F45A9509B@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <49742EC4.3070201@object-refinery.com>

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
>
>> The OpenJDK Governance Board (GB) has not met since last April because
>> Sun has not yet appointed anyone to the two open GB seats.  Sun and the
>> GB considered various candidates early on but then the effort faded into
>> the background over the summer in the face of more pressing issues.
>
> More pressing for whom?  the community or Sun?
>
> I still volunteer.
I volunteer also.  I've been a creator and consumer of Free and Open 
Source Java software for almost 10 years and, like Geir, have a keen 
interest in the success of the OpenJDK project.

Best regards,

Dave Gilbert
http://www.jfree.org/


From frans at meruvian.org  Mon Jan 19 07:51:01 2009
From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:51:01 +0700
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <49742EC4.3070201@object-refinery.com>
References: <20090116225551.0858D28CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<4D6FFFA0-FDF7-49C3-92B7-638F45A9509B@pobox.com>
	<49742EC4.3070201@object-refinery.com>
Message-ID: <3a71add70901182351p1ac3bafcn6425911f6787d63a@mail.gmail.com>

a lot of benefit if we can make openjdk more mitocracy like Apache,
for us and all of java people.

F

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM, David Gilbert
<david.gilbert at object-refinery.com> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>
>>> The OpenJDK Governance Board (GB) has not met since last April because
>>> Sun has not yet appointed anyone to the two open GB seats.  Sun and the
>>> GB considered various candidates early on but then the effort faded into
>>> the background over the summer in the face of more pressing issues.
>>
>> More pressing for whom?  the community or Sun?
>>
>> I still volunteer.
>
> I volunteer also.  I've been a creator and consumer of Free and Open Source
> Java software for almost 10 years and, like Geir, have a keen interest in
> the success of the OpenJDK project.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Gilbert
> http://www.jfree.org/
>



-- 
-- 
Frans Thamura
Meruvian
One Stop Java and Enterprise OSS Provider
Technopreneurship, Training, Internship, Outsourcing and Corporate
Competency Center

Mobile: +62 855 7888 699
Blog & Profile: http://frans.thamura.info

Training JENI, Medallion (Alfresco, Liferay dan Compiere).. buruan...
URL: http://www.meruvian.com


From geir at pobox.com  Mon Jan 19 10:38:08 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:38:08 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <49742EC4.3070201@object-refinery.com>
References: <20090116225551.0858D28CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<4D6FFFA0-FDF7-49C3-92B7-638F45A9509B@pobox.com>
	<49742EC4.3070201@object-refinery.com>
Message-ID: <1DDA87C0-9DB4-4286-B1BF-7D7A482AB1E7@pobox.com>

I know some people think I'm joking given my directed and acerbic  
remarks, plus the serious, multi-year battle with Sun to secure a Java  
SE TCK license for Harmony, but I am passionate about the subject :)

Nor is it a conflict of interest - this isn't (well, shouldn't be) a  
zero-sum game : both OpenJDK and Harmony can and should coexist at no  
cost to each other.  Having multiple implementations of the Java spec  
under different licenses with different community models is a *good*  
thing for the world.

geir


On Jan 19, 2009, at 2:41 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>
>>> The OpenJDK Governance Board (GB) has not met since last April  
>>> because
>>> Sun has not yet appointed anyone to the two open GB seats.  Sun  
>>> and the
>>> GB considered various candidates early on but then the effort  
>>> faded into
>>> the background over the summer in the face of more pressing issues.
>>
>> More pressing for whom?  the community or Sun?
>>
>> I still volunteer.
> I volunteer also.  I've been a creator and consumer of Free and Open  
> Source Java software for almost 10 years and, like Geir, have a keen  
> interest in the success of the OpenJDK project.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Gilbert
> http://www.jfree.org/



From geir at pobox.com  Mon Jan 19 10:47:19 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:47:19 -0500
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
	<1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>
	<1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <E218B702-B3CE-4FED-964D-84379E906AC5@pobox.com>


On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Hi Geir,
>
> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 09:53 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> What do you think we've been fighting for at the ASF for the last 8
>> years, and specifically, the last 2 for the JCK?
>
> I appreciate you trying to fight. And trying to change things from
> within the JCP. Which is indeed brave. You share that optimism with
> Dalibor who also always urges to not burn down that which produces bad
> results and be positive that change can happen. I might have become to
> cynical with the results not being free, open and community friendly
> over that many years, that I focus my efforts there where I can  
> actually
> produce free code in the open. You risk legitimating an institution
> which doesn't guarantee software freedom without achieving any of your
> goals. And alienating the community that you say you are fighting for
> because you hide any talks and results behind the shadowy-cabal that  
> you
> have become part of.

Who are the committers - who should be the decision makers in the  
OPenJDK community?

How many don't work for Sun?  (And of those, how many didn't work for  
sun in the past?)

>
>
>>> If through OpenJDK we can improve the process of producing
>>> specs, the reference implementation and free test suites, then I am
>>> all for it.
>>
>> You might argue that it's better, because you can get the TCK for use
>> in OpenJDK and derivatives
>
> It is better because it is under terms that allow publishing any code
> that is tested and/or passes with it under a free software license  
> that
> guarantees that the source, and not unimportantly, all patent claims
> must be shared under reciprocal terms, without any restrictions on use
> for any purpose by any user.

Have you read it?  There's no "any code".  It allows you to test Sun's  
code.

That said, I'm going to apply for one of those licenses - see if Sun  
will give me one.

And no, it's the GPL v2, which has no clear patent language.

[SNIP]

>
>
>> But it didn't work out, mainly because you never could consider
>> yourself producing software under the AL because of your views  
>> towards
>> "software hoarding"
>
> No, creating an alternative code base incompatible with almost all the
> existing efforts and not considering working together on a shared  
> common
> interface to all the components that 30 existing runtimes, class
> libraries, jits, compilers, etc. already were using and working on
> together was what made the harmony effort fail.

Yes, damn all that small-f freedom.  People wanted to do something  
that was different from what you were doing, and that was bad?

IIRC, the Harmony community quickly passed the Classpath community in  
terms of completeness.

> I might not like
> "software hoarding", and I certainly prefer using copyleft licenses  
> that
> are fairly reciprocal, but being expressly incompatible was what I
> objected to.

That's not what you said then.  You were very clear about not wanting  
to contribute software that could be used by "software hoarders".

> Any license that would be compatible with what the exiting
> communities were using would have been OK. Luckily then the FSF did
> solve a lot of those issue though by finally upgrading the GPL and
> making compatibility an explicit goal. Please do reread "Toward a Free
> Java" http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/ if you don't get what the  
> history
> is here.

Does it bother you that such a happy narrative is in conflict with  
reality?  Have you noticed that your patron chose to use a license  
that still is incompatible (GPLv2) and if the response is that the  
GPLv3 wasn't done at the time, it's done now and despite the fact that  
it has full copyright on the codebase, hasn't relicensed?  Why hasn't  
Sun used the GPL v3?  could it be compatibility with AL and other  
licenses, as well as the explicit patent language? (I actually have no  
idea...  I'm predicting I'm going to hear some vague handwaving about  
linux or something)

>
>
>> And if you're not providing code, you're providing "air-
>> cover" by letting them point to openjdk as a model open free software
>> community.
>
> It is an open free software community, even though some derivatives  
> are
> not fully free software.

LIke IBM's JRE?  you call that "not fully free"???  Or Oracle's in-DB  
implementation?  "not fully free"?  How delightfully Orwellian!

> Something I greatly regret. And you will always
> see me being very critical of that and help out any alternative effort
> to work around that. And that works. There has never been any  
> attempt to
> stifle anybody or any group creating any derivative of the code,  
> whether
> it be IcedTea as shipped most GNU/Linux distros now, nor any of the
> other hybrid implementations
> http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/06/openjdk-hybrids
>
>> So whatever problems you see has historical actually exists, and is
>> still very real and harmful for another group of people with the same
>> interests and aspirations as you, who managed to actually bring an
>> independent implementation together to the point of being ready for
>> compatibility testing.
>
> Sure, I know. We had this back in 2005 already:
> http://advogato.org/person/robilad/diary/64.html
> And even though Dalibor and Onno pushed for it, we never succeeded  
> back
> then with 1.5. Keeping chasing after these old issues instead of
> focusing on the future seems not very productive though. There are
> indeed still serious issues with non-open specs and anti-social TCK
> usage restrictions for 1.6 (I would say the processes around them are
> not really workable right now). But we do have free implementations  
> now.
>
> Instead, lets work together on fixing these issues going forward for
> 1.7, and make sure that we will not just have free code as reference
> implementation, but also with a fully free community process we all  
> seem
> to want. Either through the JCP if you feel that can still be saved,  
> or
> by going around it if it ends up not being able to produce results  
> that
> are free for all.

No, lets fix our current problems.  Our current problems tell us a lot  
about what is going to happen in the future unless we really fix them.

I realize it's much more convenient to ignore them - you get to stay  
in the clubhouse - but they are *very* serious and along with the  
current state of OpenJDK governance (the topic of this thread), point  
to a rotten foundation upon which all of this is built.

Lets fix the foundation.

geir



From mark at klomp.org  Mon Jan 19 11:30:41 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:30:41 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <E218B702-B3CE-4FED-964D-84379E906AC5@pobox.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
	<1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>
	<1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<E218B702-B3CE-4FED-964D-84379E906AC5@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <1232364641.2543.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 05:47 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Who are the committers - who should be the decision makers in the  
> OPenJDK community?

http://db.openjdk.java.net/people

> How many don't work for Sun?  (And of those, how many didn't work for  
> sun in the past?)

About 15 I would say. And those that did work for Sun in the past are
actually those that push the community the hardest and tell Sun exactly
what is wrong if they see it. Look at all Martin's poking, helping and
sponsorship of other peoples contributions.

> >>> If through OpenJDK we can improve the process of producing
> >>> specs, the reference implementation and free test suites, then I am
> >>> all for it.
> >>
> >> You might argue that it's better, because you can get the TCK for use
> >> in OpenJDK and derivatives
> >
> > It is better because it is under terms that allow publishing any code
> > that is tested and/or passes with it under a free software license  
> > that
> > guarantees that the source, and not unimportantly, all patent claims
> > must be shared under reciprocal terms, without any restrictions on use
> > for any purpose by any user.
> 
> Have you read it?  There's no "any code".  It allows you to test Sun's  
> code.

It allows testing and redistributing code derived from Sun's code, but
you are free to combine it with any other code, given that the results
are distributed under in a repricical way under the GPL so as to give
anybody access to the code. Cacao and Jalimo which both use OpenJDK
hybrids both got one. But the TCK is still proprietary and under NDA
making it mostly useless for those working openly in the community.

> And no, it's the GPL v2, which has no clear patent language.

It has clear patent language (clause 7), it is even in the preemble of
the GPL explaining that is the intend is: "we have made it clear that
any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use" Which means the GPL
acts like a patent shield for all that distribute code under it. But it
doesn't have a clear patent retaliation clause, which is important to
combat patent trolls, and why we should upgrade to GPLv3 over time.

And of course there are other patent troll protections in place when
combining with anything GCJ/GNU Classpath related, like those provided
by the OIN foundation.

> People wanted to do something  
> that was different from what you were doing, and that was bad?

No, people abused the existing community in the name of "Harmony", but
instead of creating Harmony tried to do a hostile takeover of that
community and letting those who did aspire to create true harmony spin
their wheels trying to derail any cooperation.

> IIRC, the Harmony community quickly passed the Classpath community in  
> terms of completeness.

You seem to recall incorrectly. Though there is some nice code in
harmony now, it still isn't as deep and broad as what GNU Classpath &
friends are providing right now.

> > I might not like
> > "software hoarding", and I certainly prefer using copyleft licenses  
> > that
> > are fairly reciprocal, but being expressly incompatible was what I
> > objected to.
> 
> That's not what you said then.  You were very clear about not wanting  
> to contribute software that could be used by "software hoarders".

Again, your memory seems to be faulty. It was the resistance to work
together on technical terms with the rest of the libre-java community
that I objected to and that finally let to most of the Harmony founders
that already had harmony with the various other libre-java efforts
leaving. As said before:

> > Please do reread "Toward a Free
> > Java" http://lwn.net/Articles/184967/ if you don't get what the  
> > history is here.

Cheers,

Mark



From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM  Mon Jan 19 14:21:49 2009
From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:21:49 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
	<1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>
	<1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <49748C7D.5080104@Sun.COM>

On 01/17/09 22:07, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> And if you're not providing code, you're providing "air- 
>> cover" by letting them point to openjdk as a model open free software  
>> community.
>>     
>
> It is an open free software community, even though some derivatives are
> not fully free software. Something I greatly regret. And you will always
> see me being very critical of that and help out any alternative effort
> to work around that. And that works. There has never been any attempt to
> stifle anybody or any group creating any derivative of the code, whether
> it be IcedTea as shipped most GNU/Linux distros now, nor any of the
> other hybrid implementations
> http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/06/openjdk-hybrids
>   
I should add that two hybrid implementations have applied and received 
their TCKs,
too (Tarent & CACAO). I hope we'll see many more prosper over the coming 
years!

As far as being a 'model community' goes, I think OpenJDK is 
substantially different
from other models typically held up in discussions, in that it's not 
focused on making
people commit to the 'one true way of developing one open source 
software project
centrally'.

Instead, it's a 'meta-project', hosting different sub-projects like 
OpenJDK7, each one with
their own goals, motivations, constraints, communities and rules of 
engagement. It's also
quite different from some other open source projects in embracing and 
working with
autonomous efforts around the code base, rather then seeing them as a 
challenge to a
centralized model.

I'd see those two aspects as derived from the GNU Classpath culture of 
encouraging
developers to work on the projects important to them under their own 
rules, while
sharing improvements on a common stream in ways that make sense to them.
Rather then having one specific shared stream, OpenJDK 'lifts' that 
approach up one
meta-level higher, so that there can be many shared side streams, and 
code can flow
through subprojects like a canal network.[1]

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1} So, for example, the version of HotSpot flowing into OpenJDK 6 and 
OpenJDK 7
can be the same one, or a different one, depending on what choices the 
developers in
each project make. It's their choice to make.

-- 
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland B?mer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring



From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM  Tue Jan 20 10:18:55 2009
From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:18:55 +0100
Subject: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
In-Reply-To: <E218B702-B3CE-4FED-964D-84379E906AC5@pobox.com>
References: <15e8b9d20901071915l37537730sc8f0e96a8968b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<1231424103.3444.32.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
	<15e8b9d20901151058k24a71720ub0ce6df329e89b24@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232064713.3379.9.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<FAC28747-E197-421E-A17E-60AE991190FB@pobox.com>
	<1232200377.3713.50.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<5C321617-B506-4E16-80E3-EF808D231B83@pobox.com>
	<1232226438.3709.128.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>
	<E218B702-B3CE-4FED-964D-84379E906AC5@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <4975A50F.7010304@Sun.COM>

On 19.01.09 11:47, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Have you noticed that your patron chose to use a license that still is 
> incompatible (GPLv2) and if the response is that the GPLv3 wasn't done 
> at the time, it's done now and despite the fact that it has full 
> copyright on the codebase, hasn't relicensed?  Why hasn't Sun used the 
> GPL v3?  could it be compatibility with AL and other licenses, as well 
> as the explicit patent language? (I actually have no idea...  I'm 
> predicting I'm going to hear some vague handwaving about linux or 
> something)
GPL v3 wasn't done back when the (very reasonable) decision was made to 
follow the established GNU Classpath licensing model, and go with the 
GPL. The first code published by Sun within OpenJDK dates back to 
November, 2006, while GPLv3 was published in June, 2007. So without a 
time machine at their hands to travel forward in time to grab a copy of 
GPLv3 and then go back to 2006 to release the code under it, Sun 
couldn't have possibly released OpenJDK under GPLv3.

Sun uses the GPLv3 family of licenses in other projects: 
OpenOffice.org[1] is released under LGPLv3, which itself is modeled as 
an exception construct on GPLv3. The xVM project is released under GPLv3.

The FSF is working on an update of the exception language for GPLv3 for 
the different FSF-led projects using exception constructs like the 
Classpath exception. Once the FSF finishes their work, I expect that 
free runtime projects including OpenJDK will look into what it would 
take to adopt those updates. Since there is no pressing problem with the 
current licensing a move to GPLv3 would address, there is no pressing 
need for OpenJDK to switch to GPLv3 right away, before the FSF finishes 
the work they're doing.

For OpenJDK, the compatibility issues between GPLv2 and GPL-incompatible 
licenses in the OpenJDK code base have been dealt with by adding an 
assembly exception to the GPL.

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1]  http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#whylgplv3

-- 
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland B?mer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring



From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM  Fri Jan 23 06:54:10 2009
From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:54:10 -0800
Subject: JDK 7 build 44  is available at the openjdk.java.net website
Message-ID: <49796992.3090506@sun.com>


The OpenJDK source is available at:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/a395e3aac474

The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 44 are 
available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source 
Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)

Summary of changes:
http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b44.html


-Xiomara




From mark at klomp.org  Mon Jan 26 08:07:49 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:07:49 +0100
Subject: Final Program Free Java Meeting at Fosdem - Brussels, Belgium on 7
	and 8 February 2009
In-Reply-To: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
References: <1226948033.3264.68.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <1232957269.3587.30.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org>

Hi all,

In less than 2 weeks our little big event will take place!

The program for our libre java meeting at Fosdem has been finalized.
There are posters with a summary of the talks to print out at:
http://www.klomp.org/mark/classpath/fosdem09/poster_09.odg
http://www.klomp.org/mark/classpath/fosdem09/poster_09.pdf

Talk abstracts and bios of the speakers can be found at:
http://fosdem.org/2009/schedule/devroom/freejava

The wiki has some pointers to extra activities:
http://wiki.debian.org/Java/DevJam/2009/Fosdem
Including a dinner on Saturday night. Please add yourself if you want to
attend before Wednesday, January 28th

Hoping to see you all there, your friendly ad hoc Fosdem meeting
committee,

Dalibor Topic,
Andrew John Hughes,
Andrew Haley,
David Herron
and Mark Wielaard



From mihamina at lab.vectoris.fr  Tue Jan 27 07:32:08 2009
From: mihamina at lab.vectoris.fr (Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y))
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:32:08 +0300
Subject: what to install on ubuntu to have firefox java plugin
Message-ID: <497EB878.5010501@lab.vectoris.fr>

Hi all,
I use the ubuntu 64-bit packaged openjdk-6-*
What should be the manipulations in order to have the java plugin 
enabled in firefox?

-- 
Chef de projet chez Vectoris
http://www.google.com/search?q=mihamina+rakotomandimby


From geir at pobox.com  Thu Jan 29 16:10:43 2009
From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:10:43 -0500
Subject: Project proposal: Jigsaw
In-Reply-To: <20090129160601.701C728CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <20090129160601.701C728CF40@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <1EE1D650-6388-45AD-8587-058B990502DA@pobox.com>

Take a look at how Harmony modularized the classlib a few years ago.

There might be some good "lessons learned" from it.

geir

On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Mark Reinhold wrote:

> I hereby propose the creation of Project Jigsaw.  The primary goals of
> this Project will be to modularize the JDK 7 code base and to enable  
> the
> modularization of library and application code by similar means [1].
>
> I request sponsorship from the Compiler Group.  Jon Gibbons and I will
> serve as the Moderators of this Project.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/jigsaw



From Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM  Thu Jan 29 23:19:36 2009
From: Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM (Jonathan Gibbons)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:19:36 -0800
Subject: CFV: Project sponsorship: Jigsaw
In-Reply-To: <4981EB40.4050705@sun.com>
References: <4981EB40.4050705@sun.com>
Message-ID: <49823988.10705@sun.com>

There are already 6 votes in favor, which is an absolute majority of
the Group's Members. Therefore I am calling the result early, and
am pleased to announce the Compiler Group will sponsor this Project.

-- Jon


Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>
> Question: Should the Compiler Group sponsor the proposed 
>          "Jigsaw" Project [1]?
>
> Please cast your vote by replying, publicly, to this message with
> either
>
> Vote: yes
>
> or
>
> Vote: no
>
> as the first line of the message body.
>
> You may, at your option, indicate the reason for your decision on
> subsequent lines.
>
> Votes must be cast in the open; votes sent as private replies will
> not be counted.
>
> The sponsorship decision will be made by a simple majority vote of
> the Group's Members.  Votes are due by midnight UTC next Monday,
> 15 December.  As an optimization, if an absolute majority of the
> Group's Members votes one way or the other prior to that time then
> the decision may be rendered earlier.
>
> Only Members of the Compiler' Group are eligible to vote on this
> decision.  The current Members are:
>
>    Alex Buckley
>    Maurizio Cimadamore
>    Iris Clark
>    Joe Darcy
>    Neal Gafter
>    Jonathan Gibbons
>    John Rose
>    Kumar Srinivasan
>
> Once a decision has been made the votes will be summarized and
> reported to this list and also to discuss at openjdk.java.net 
> <mailto:discuss at openjdk.java.net>.
>
> -- Jon
>
> [1] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2009-January/000066.html



From mr at sun.com  Fri Jan 30 03:45:21 2009
From: mr at sun.com (Mark Reinhold)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:45:21 -0800
Subject: Project proposal: Jigsaw 
In-Reply-To: geir@pobox.com; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:10:43 EST;
	<1EE1D650-6388-45AD-8587-058B990502DA@pobox.com> 
Message-ID: <20090130034521.2E8172643B@callebaut.niobe.net>

> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:10:43 -0500
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir at pobox.com>

> Take a look at how Harmony modularized the classlib a few years ago.
> 
> There might be some good "lessons learned" from it.

Indeed.  We already have.

- Mark


From vmikheev at excelsior-usa.com  Fri Jan 30 10:23:14 2009
From: vmikheev at excelsior-usa.com (Vitaly Mikheev)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:23:14 +0600
Subject: Project proposal: Jigsaw 
Message-ID: <C499FB28FD6BEE458071184CE929A111F62E8F@mail.excelsior>

>>I hereby propose the creation of Project Jigsaw. The primary goals of
>>this Project will be to modularize the JDK 7 code base and to enable the
>>modularization of library and application code by similar means [1].

In Excelsior JET we implemented a JRE modularization at the JVM level in a JCK-compliant fashion for both Java 1.5 and Java 6.

http://www.excelsior-usa.com/java-download-size.html

Though it serves only two purposes (reducing download size and disk footprint), we received a very positive feedback from our customers.

That said, we have practical experience that confirms the viability of the approach taken by Jigsaw.
I wish you good luck!

--Vitaly

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net [SMTP:discuss-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Mark Reinhold
> Sent:	Friday, January 30, 2009 9:45 AM
> To:	discuss at openjdk.java.net
> Subject:	Re: Project proposal: Jigsaw 
> 
> > Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:10:43 -0500
> > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir at pobox.com>
> 
> > Take a look at how Harmony modularized the classlib a few years ago.
> > 
> > There might be some good "lessons learned" from it.
> 
> Indeed.  We already have.
> 
> - Mark


From mark at klomp.org  Fri Jan 30 11:04:38 2009
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:04:38 +0100
Subject: Project proposal: Jigsaw
In-Reply-To: <20090130034521.2E8172643B@callebaut.niobe.net>
References: <20090130034521.2E8172643B@callebaut.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <1233313478.2237.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi Mark,

On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 19:45 -0800, Mark Reinhold wrote:
> > There might be some good "lessons learned" from it.
> 
> Indeed.  We already have.

And you probably already know about it since Jeroen posted some blogs in
response to your original Jigsaw articles, but IKVM has also
experimented with modularization of the core libraries:
http://weblog.ikvm.net/PermaLink.aspx?guid=2ecd5b7e-ae32-413b-8970-fc467d9e3f12
http://weblog.ikvm.net/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f5cd40bc-d6ff-4fa1-8c0b-33a07f7ef967

Looking forward to hearing your talk about it all [1].

Cheers,

Mark

[1] http://fosdem.org/2009/schedule/events/java_jigsaw



From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM  Fri Jan 30 16:57:13 2009
From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:57:13 -0800
Subject: JDK 7 build 45  is available at the openjdk.java.net website
Message-ID: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>


The OpenJDK source is available at:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/99846f001ca2

The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 45 are 
available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source 
Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)

Summary of changes:
http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b45.html


-Xiomara



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Fri Jan 30 17:35:24 2009
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:35:24 +0000
Subject: JDK 7 build 45 is available at the openjdk.java.net website
In-Reply-To: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>
References: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <17c6771e0901300935u1f63f4c0x3dcbd201b57d362b@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>
> The OpenJDK source is available at:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/99846f001ca2
>
> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 45 are
> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source
> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)
>
> Summary of changes:
> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b45.html
>
>
> -Xiomara
>
>

So did nothing change?  That webpage is empty.

What is the schedule now? There have been three drops in the last half
of this month.
-- 
Andrew :-)

IcedTea/OpenJDK Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8


From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM  Fri Jan 30 17:46:30 2009
From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:46:30 -0800
Subject: JDK 7 build 45 is available at the openjdk.java.net website
In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0901300935u1f63f4c0x3dcbd201b57d362b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0901300935u1f63f4c0x3dcbd201b57d362b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49833CF6.40801@Sun.COM>

On 01/30/09 09:35, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>   
>> The OpenJDK source is available at:
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/99846f001ca2
>>
>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 45 are
>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source
>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)
>>
>> Summary of changes:
>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b45.html
>>
>>
>> -Xiomara
>>
>>
>>     
>
> So did nothing change?

Correct --  this build can be skipped if needed.

>   That webpage is empty.
>
> What is the schedule now? There have been three drops in the last half
> of this month.
>   

We are trying to do drops on a weekly basis now. 
The schedule is located here:
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/builds/


-Xiomara




From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Fri Jan 30 17:53:42 2009
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:53:42 +0000
Subject: JDK 7 build 45 is available at the openjdk.java.net website
In-Reply-To: <49833CF6.40801@Sun.COM>
References: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0901300935u1f63f4c0x3dcbd201b57d362b@mail.gmail.com>
	<49833CF6.40801@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <17c6771e0901300953k7079cb6br3a848ce19140efc@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
> On 01/30/09 09:35, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> 2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>
>
> The OpenJDK source is available at:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/99846f001ca2
>
> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 45 are
> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source
> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)
>
> Summary of changes:
> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b45.html
>
>
> -Xiomara
>
>
>
>
> So did nothing change?
>
> Correct --  this build can be skipped if needed.
>

Then why bother exactly?

>   That webpage is empty.
>
> What is the schedule now? There have been three drops in the last half
> of this month.
>
>
> We are trying to do drops on a weekly basis now.
> The schedule is located here:
> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/builds/
>

Thanks, I really needed twice as much work...

>
> -Xiomara
>
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

IcedTea/OpenJDK Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8


From Joe.Darcy at Sun.COM  Fri Jan 30 20:50:04 2009
From: Joe.Darcy at Sun.COM (Joseph D. Darcy)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:50:04 -0800
Subject: JDK 7 build 45 is available at the openjdk.java.net website
In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0901300953k7079cb6br3a848ce19140efc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0901300935u1f63f4c0x3dcbd201b57d362b@mail.gmail.com>
	<49833CF6.40801@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0901300953k7079cb6br3a848ce19140efc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <498367FC.7020709@sun.com>

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>   
>> On 01/30/09 09:35, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>>
>>
>> The OpenJDK source is available at:
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/99846f001ca2
>>
>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 45 are
>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source
>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)
>>
>> Summary of changes:
>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b45.html
>>
>>
>> -Xiomara
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So did nothing change?
>>
>> Correct --  this build can be skipped if needed.
>>
>>     
>
> Then why bother exactly?
>
>   
>>   That webpage is empty.
>>
>> What is the schedule now? There have been three drops in the last half
>> of this month.
>>
>>
>> We are trying to do drops on a weekly basis now.
>> The schedule is located here:
>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/builds/
>>
>>     
>
> Thanks, I really needed twice as much work...
>
>   

Some people like to get fixes in the promoted builds faster.

-Joe



From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org  Fri Jan 30 21:21:01 2009
From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:21:01 +0000
Subject: JDK 7 build 45 is available at the openjdk.java.net website
In-Reply-To: <498367FC.7020709@sun.com>
References: <49833169.10904@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0901300935u1f63f4c0x3dcbd201b57d362b@mail.gmail.com>
	<49833CF6.40801@Sun.COM>
	<17c6771e0901300953k7079cb6br3a848ce19140efc@mail.gmail.com>
	<498367FC.7020709@sun.com>
Message-ID: <17c6771e0901301321h36048668l47bc677ecfb4e6b2@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/30 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/09 09:35, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/1/30  <Xiomara.Jayasena at sun.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> The OpenJDK source is available at:
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/99846f001ca2
>>>
>>> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 45 are
>>> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source
>>> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7)
>>>
>>> Summary of changes:
>>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b45.html
>>>
>>>
>>> -Xiomara
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So did nothing change?
>>>
>>> Correct --  this build can be skipped if needed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then why bother exactly?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  That webpage is empty.
>>>
>>> What is the schedule now? There have been three drops in the last half
>>> of this month.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are trying to do drops on a weekly basis now.
>>> The schedule is located here:
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/builds/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, I really needed twice as much work...
>>
>>
>
> Some people like to get fixes in the promoted builds faster.
>
> -Joe
>
>

Fair enough, but this empty drop along with the amount in previous
drops suggests there isn't enough to sustain such frequent drops.  And
besides, it's all in the Mercurial forests anyway...
-- 
Andrew :-)

IcedTea/OpenJDK Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8