OpenJDK governing board, constitution

[David Herron @ Sun]

Andy Tripp wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2009, at 19:09, Andy Tripp wrote:
>>
>>>  What has changed so that a constitution is no longer needed?
>>
>> Who said it wasn't needed?
>
> I'm deducing that you believe that a constitution is not needed, because
> the GB is the one who was supposed to create it, it hasn't, and that 
> seems to be OK
> with you. Do you think it's needed or not?
>
>> It's just that the only dispute that has arisen so far appears to be 
>> this one, 
>
> Naturally, no issues are going to "arise" if there's nowhere for them 
> to go.
> Closures are a good example. As you know, there are several proposals and
> at least one implementation out there. At this point, it looks like Neal
> could probably get BGGA closures into openjdk just by committing the 
> code. Could that code then flow into the JDK (without a JSR) or not?
>

You said 'JDK' in the last phrase so I suppose you mean the thing we 
label 'JavaSE' and ship through java.sun.com and java.com.

The JCK is derived from JCP specs and tests for conformance.  Our 
product named JavaSE (a.k.a. JDK) has to meet the JSR specs and hence is 
run through the JCK just like all other Java implementations.  Assuming 
the JCK can successfully reject a compiler that supports an extension 
like closures if closures are not in the spec, then a Java compiler 
could not support that extension and call itself a Java compiler.

Thinking off the top of my head I suppose that such support could be 
turned on by an option and so long as the extension is "off" by default 
it would meet JCP requirements. 


>> and experience elsewhere shows that creating governance in a vacuum 
>> leads to bad decisions. What actually is the need precipitating your 
>> passion, beyond an arbitrary date passing (through, I agree, apparent 
>> neglect)?
>
> I want to know if the JDK is now in the process of forking into
> a) the JCP-controlled JDK, which at this point looks like it may never 
> have a "7" release
> b) OpenJDK/IcedTea, self-controlled, with ongoing changes.

We didn't open source the spec process, we open sourced an 
implementation.  The JSR's are the spec and are controlled by the JCP.

I think that questions about opening the spec process need to be brought 
to the JCP.  The OpenJDK project is not the best place to pursue opening 
up the spec process.

For prior Java<n> cycles for values of n less than 7 .. "little changes" 
were rolled into the "Platform JSR" which allows for changes on the size 
of a bug fix or minor feature which aren't significant enough to require 
a JSR.  The same would be true for the Java7 cycle assuming we're able 
to settle the issues which currently prevent a Java7 JSR from existing.  
Hence such ongoing small changes in OpenJDK7 would be rolled into the 
platform JSR I'm assuming will eventually exist.

- David Herron