From iris.clark at oracle.com Wed Jan 2 22:24:56 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 14:24:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 388 (Java SE 13) Specification -- DRAFT 1 Message-ID: Hi. The first draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/13/spec/draft/java-se-13-draft-spec-01/ It is based on build 1 which has few changes. Once JEPs are Targeted for JDK 13, I'll add the "Feature summary" and "Feature details" sections. Similarly, if any APIs or non-API features are removed, I'll add the "APIs removed" or "Non-API features removed" sections as appropriate. This JSR uses JCP version 2.11 as defined in JSR 387. The next JCP milestone is PR, scheduled for Summer 2019. Until then, draft releases of the Specification and Reference Implementation will be provided on a regular basis. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/13/spec/ Thanks, iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Fri Jan 4 19:45:44 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 11:45:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 386 (Java SE 12) Specification -- DRAFT 26 Message-ID: <60b99645-423c-4ca6-8a81-302be19f20e0@default> Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/12/spec/draft/java-se-12-draft-spec-26/ This draft includes the following changes: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 26 The next JCP milestone is PFD. I anticipate submission to the PMO in late January and publication in February. As usual with milestones, we'll take a snapshot of the current Specification and submit it. I expect additional DRAFTs before PFD for newly Targeted JEPs, removed/deprecated APIs, etc. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/spec/ As always, feedback on this and other work in progress is welcome. Thanks, Iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Sat Jan 5 04:43:51 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 20:43:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 388 (Java SE 13) Specification -- DRAFT 2 Message-ID: <6b962ca9-3471-4995-bcd6-9f1fdcc815bd@default> Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/13/spec/draft/java-se-13-draft-spec-02/ This draft includes the following changes: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 2 Once JEPs are Targeted for JDK 13, I'll add the "Feature summary" and "Feature details" sections. Similarly, if any APIs or non-API features are removed, I'll add the "APIs removed" or "Non-API features removed" sections as appropriate. This JSR uses JCP version 2.11 as defined in JSR 387. The next JCP milestone is PR, scheduled for Summer 2019. Until then, draft releases of the Specification and Reference Implementation will be provided on a regular basis. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/13/spec/ Thanks, iris From brian.goetz at oracle.com Tue Jan 15 18:04:56 2019 From: brian.goetz at oracle.com (Brian Goetz) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:04:56 -0500 Subject: Moving to JCP 2.11 Message-ID: The JCP 2.11 process document has been ratified, and the Java 13 JSR was launched under it. Java 12, which was started on JCP 2.10, can be moved to it mid-stream with the agreement of the EG. It was raised at the meeting yesterday that we should move to 2.11, with no disagreement; for the sake of those who were not present, if you have any objections to doing so, please make them! Otherwise we?ll ask the PMO to move the SE 12 JSR to JCP 2.11 on Monday, in advance of the PR milestone. From iris.clark at oracle.com Tue Jan 15 20:15:35 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 12:15:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 386 (Java SE 12) Specification -- DRAFT 27 Message-ID: Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/12/spec/draft/java-se-12-draft-spec-27/ This draft includes the following changes: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 27 In JCP 2.10, the next JCP milestone is PFD. I anticipate submission to the PMO in late January and publication in February. As usual with milestones, we'll take a snapshot of the current Specification and submit it. I expect additional DRAFTs before PFD for newly Targeted JEPs, removed/deprecated APIs, etc. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/spec/ As always, feedback on this and other work in progress is welcome. Thanks, Iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Tue Jan 15 20:15:49 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 12:15:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 388 (Java SE 13) Specification -- DRAFT 3 Message-ID: Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/13/spec/draft/java-se-13-draft-spec-03/ This draft includes the following changes: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 3 Once JEPs are Targeted for JDK 13, I'll add the "Feature summary" and "Feature details" sections. Similarly, if any APIs or non-API features are removed, I'll add the "APIs removed" or "Non-API features removed" sections as appropriate. This JSR uses JCP version 2.11 as defined in JSR 387. The next JCP milestone is PR, scheduled for Summer 2019. Until then, draft releases of the Specification and Reference Implementation will be provided on a regular basis. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/13/spec/ Thanks, Iris From Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com Mon Jan 21 10:24:08 2019 From: Tim_Ellison at uk.ibm.com (Tim Ellison) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:24:08 +0000 Subject: Moving to JCP 2.11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for missing the EG meeting. If there are minutes, or a recording I'd be interested to have access. I have no objections to moving Java 12 to JCP 2.11 Regards, Tim "java-se-spec-experts" wrote on 15/01/2019 18:04:56: > From: Brian Goetz > To: java-se-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net > Date: 15/01/2019 18:05 > Subject: Moving to JCP 2.11 > Sent by: "java-se-spec-experts" bounces at openjdk.java.net> > > The JCP 2.11 process document has been ratified, and the Java 13 JSR > was launched under it. Java 12, which was started on JCP 2.10, can > be moved to it mid-stream with the agreement of the EG. It was > raised at the meeting yesterday that we should move to 2.11, with no > disagreement; for the sake of those who were not present, if you > have any objections to doing so, please make them! Otherwise we?ll > ask the PMO to move the SE 12 JSR to JCP 2.11 on Monday, in advance > of the PR milestone. > > Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU From iris.clark at oracle.com Tue Jan 22 22:23:36 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:23:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moving to JCP 2.11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Tim. I'm still writing up the minutes. My work schedule has been absolutely packed the past few weeks but I see a clearing. I hope to finish them in the next few days. They'll be sent to this list. Apologies for the delay. iris -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ellison Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 2:24 AM To: java-se-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Moving to JCP 2.11 Apologies for missing the EG meeting. If there are minutes, or a recording I'd be interested to have access. I have no objections to moving Java 12 to JCP 2.11 Regards, Tim "java-se-spec-experts" wrote on 15/01/2019 18:04:56: > From: Brian Goetz > To: java-se-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net > Date: 15/01/2019 18:05 > Subject: Moving to JCP 2.11 > Sent by: "java-se-spec-experts" bounces at openjdk.java.net> > > The JCP 2.11 process document has been ratified, and the Java 13 JSR > was launched under it. Java 12, which was started on JCP 2.10, can be > moved to it mid-stream with the agreement of the EG. It was raised at > the meeting yesterday that we should move to 2.11, with no > disagreement; for the sake of those who were not present, if you have > any objections to doing so, please make them! Otherwise we?ll ask the > PMO to move the SE 12 JSR to JCP 2.11 on Monday, in advance of the PR > milestone. > > Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU From iris.clark at oracle.com Fri Jan 25 17:49:56 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:49:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: EG Meeting Minutes: Mon 14 Jan 2019 Message-ID: <3a52da6e-45c9-4ee5-8c96-4ea83cbf356b@default> Hi. I've attached minutes for our meeting on 14 Jan. Please provide update to this thread as necessary. Thanks, Iris -------------- next part -------------- Java SE 12 (JSR 386) and Java SE 13 (JSR 388) Expert Group minutes: 2019/01/14 Attendees: Brian Goetz (Oracle), Manoj Palat (Eclipse Foundation), Simon Ritter (Azul Systems, Inc.) Volker Simonis (SAP SE), and Iris Clark (Oracle, minutes) The intent of these minutes is to capture the conversational flow of the discussion and to record any decisions and follow-up items. Agenda ------ - Amber hyphenated keywords (Manoj) - JDK 12 retrospective - Raw string literals ??? proposed and pulled back - Preview features - how to ensure adequate feedback? - JCP 2.11 process update ??? what to expect going forward - JSR 388 (Java SE 13) startup - OpenJDK Contributors Workshop ??? coming up in Feb - API documentation licenses (Volker) Brian started the meeting by wishing everybody a "Happy New Year". Referencing the previously sent agenda, he asked if there were any additional items. Manoj and Volker contributed "Amber hyphenated keywords" and "API documentation licenses" respectively. Amber hyphenated keywords ------------------------- Manoj asked about the recent proposal in [Project Amber][amber] to add [hyphenated keywords][amberHyphen]. Brian said that it was an idea that has received positive responses. He believed that the proposal avoided difficulties associated with conditional keywords and would be easier for tooling. Brian was hoping to get more direct development feedback on the [amber-dev mailing list][amberDev]. Manoj also asked whether there were plans for changes to switch expressions. Brian replied that there were no plans at this point and he was happy with things as they were. There was a suggestion on the list to change the 'break' keyword to something like 'breakwith' on the assumption that it would be a straightforward change; however, the suggestion did not stimulate any discussion. Brian encouraged people with opinions to reply on the list. [amber]: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/amber/ [amberHyphen]: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2019-January/000945.html [amberDev]: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/amber-dev JDK 12 retrospective -------------------- Brian reported that JDK 12 (the RI for JSR 386) reached the "Feature Freeze" milestone in December and that RDP2 (Rampdown Phase 2) was imminent. He believed that overall it was a smooth release and commented that in contrast to releases prior to the six month cadence, the transition to the next release seemed relatively stress-free. Brian believed that the new cadence was an enormous success for developers and that the transition had gone better than he had imagined. Additional education for users was still needed. Moving to [raw string literals][jep326], Simon noted that removing the language feature from the release was evidence that preview features were working as they should. Brian said that he was apprehensive about removing them late in the release; however, feedback from the Community has indicated that it was the correct decision. Simon observed that a six month delay was minor compared to the fact that Java had lived without them for 23 years. Brian believed that raw string literals were solidified prematurely and work on them continued. He expected an updated proposal for Java SE 13. Brian described the [preview feature][jep12] mechanism timeline saying that for Java SE 12, the RI Feature Freeze was in December with release the following March. For SE 13, the RI Feature Freeze would be in June, three months later at which time, the disposition of the preview feature would be decided. He wondered whether three months was sufficient time to receive feedback for that decision. Brian did not want to preview features for a year; however, he was concerned about the small window. Simon said that the simplest answer was to preview for a year. Volker noted that [HTTP2][jep321] required two releases before it became standard. He believed that enterprise users would not move to SE 12. Brian also understood that many users would never touch preview features; however, they existed to solicit for more feedback than was received from [EA binaries][ea12] before the feature was finalized. Volker observed that the huge code bases of enterprise developers made it unlikely that they would ever compile with a preview feature enabled. Manoj explained that Eclipse delivered a stable release every three months. Support for SE 12 would be in the Eclipse stable release three months after SE 12 was released; however, proactive users could download a patch the day after the SE 12 released. Eclipse expected a three month minimum before most users would be using the new SE release. When asked how users were notified of new releases, Manoj said that users would need to find the release on the Eclipsea web page. There was no explicit user notification. Brian summarized that while the preview feature concept was good, the new release cadence may require adjustments for these feature to receive a reasonable amount of feedback. Volker asked whether the "six months" was defined in the JEP describing preview features. Brian replied that it was not. Preview features are not permanent. Explicit action must be taken for them to remain in the next release. The choices are to become a permanent feature or to preview for another release, just like [incubating modules][jep11]. Brian thought that it would be unfortunate if a preview feature was renewed for another release then received no additional feedback. Volker wondered if the lack of feedback indicated whether nobody was using the feature or it worked well. Volker recommended using preview features to implement the JDK itself since that would almost certainly guarantee feedback; however, he understood that this decision involved some cost if the feature changes or is removed. Brian added that use in the JDK would likely discover corner cases; however, careful consideration would be necessary before using preview features in the JDK. Volker said that if the feature was 99% complete, then it should be trusted for use. Manoj asked whether preview features could be in a Long-Term Support (LTS) release. Brian answered saying that any release may have preview features. For example, say the next LTS release is Java SE 17 and it contains a preview feature. Presumably the feature would be promoted in Java SE 18 or 19, but those using them in Java SE 17 after SE 18 (or SE 19) was released would still need to turn the features on at compile and runtime. [jep326]: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/326 [jep12]: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/11X [jep321]: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/321 [ea12]: https://jdk.java.net/12/ [jep11]: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/11 JCP 2.11 process update ----------------------- Brian said that the JCP process was now at version 2.11, having recently been streamlined via [JSR 387][jsr387]. The changes were around recognizing that we are on a more rapid release schedule. The Early Draft Review (EDR) milestone was replaced with continuous drafts as announced by Iris. There were also changes to the end of the JSR life-cycle. Previously, three milestones came in quick succession: Public Review (PR), Proposed Final Draft (PFD), and Final Approval Ballot (FAB). Now there is a Public Release (PR) followed by a ballot then a Final Release (FR) that does not have a ballot; however, the constraint was that only minor corrections and clarifications were appropriate after PR. He suggested thinking of PR as the "Specification Feature Freeze". Brian said that JCP 2.11 was in line what how things worked for Java SE specification development now. Brian asked whether JSR 386 (Java SE 12) should change to JCP 2.11. He said that the benefits were obvious and the risk was that some people in the JCP may be upset that they did not get an opportunity to express their concerns. Simon understood Brian's concern, but thought that JSR 386 should switch to the new process. Based on feedback he had heard, he did not think anybody would notice or be upset. Volker said that the JCP unanimously voted to approve JSR 387 and the Platform JSR use case was considered during the development of JCP 2.11. He did not think there would be any problems and supported moving to the latest JCP process. Wrapping up the topic, Brain took an action item to propose moving to JCP 2.11 on the [EG mailing list][eglist] so that Andrew and Tim could comment before a decision was made one week hence, Mon 21 Jan. [jsr387]: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=387 [eglist]: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/java-se-spec-experts JSR 388 (Java SE 13) startup ---------------------------- Brian began this topic saying that [JSE 388 (Java SE 13)][388] should be the last JSR that would need an approval vote to begin and that subsequent JSRs would be automatically renewed. Brian warmly welcomed Manoj (Eclipse Foundation) to the EG saying that he particularly looked forward to their feedback for new features from the tooling perspective. Manoj observed that with so many language features being developed and discussed on the mailing lists, it would be nice if there was a dashboard of features expected within the next few years. Brian replied that there were still struggles around the best way handle this kind of planning as it may be perceived as commitments. He liked the idea of a flexible roadmap and pointed to the development progression of the pattern matching feature which was delivered in phases. It was hard to deliver in a flexible manner with enough lead time for tooling to be ready for the next release. Out-of-band conversations were in progress to bridge this gap but a more organized and public mechanism was needed. Manoj said that quite a bit of work on a feature usually occurred before Eclipse had the resources to begin their work and they could focus on only one or two features at a time. Finishing the topic of , Brian asked whether the [JEP][jep388] and {CSR][csr388] dashboards were up. Iris replied that they went up in December. Manoj said that his team used them periodically; however, they wanted more of a "big picture roadmap" for planning. Brian replied that he would think about possible solutions. The concern was that any time a feature is associated with a release, a promise was made to deliver. [jsr388]: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=388 [jep388]: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=18216 [csr388]: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=18217 OpenJDK Contributors' Workshop (OCW) ------------------------------------ Brian said that [OCW][ocw] would be held on Monday, 4 February immediately after [FOSDEM '19][fosdem19] (Brussels, 2 & 3 Feb). A registration process had not been announced but was expected to be light. He commented that OCW in August 2018 was very successful. Brian expected the February 2019 OCW would have a different composition due to the location. [ocw]: https://openjdk.java.net/workshop [fosdem19]: https://fosdem.org/2019/ 337, 384 Maintenance Reviews (MRs) ---------------------------------- Iris started by saying that while Maintenance Reviews did not have Expert Groups, she wanted to provide a brief status for the expected work for the [JSR 337][jsr337] (Java SE 8) and [JSR 384][jsr384] (Java SE 11) MRs. The MRs will address a targeted number of critical issues related to support for external standards as described in the message cross-posted to [jdk8u-dev][jdk8u] and [jdk-updates-dev][jdku]. The specification changes would be developed and contributed following the standard processes for the respective OpenJDK Projects. Iris expected that the affected project's maintainers would work together on the mechanics of the integration of the resulting changes into the appropriate forests and repositories in the coming weeks. [jsr337]: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=337 [jsr384]: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=384 [jdku]: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2018-December/000308.html [jdk8u]: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2018-December/008324.html API documentation licenses -------------------------- Volker described his concern by saying that the API documentation for the Reference Implementation (RI) is all under the [GNU General Public License][gpl]; however, when the JavaDoc API is generated from that documentation it is under different licenses which do not permit redistribution. He wanted a configurable solution. Brian reiterated Volker's concern to verify his understanding and said that he would need to investigate. [gpl]: https://openjdk.java.net/legal/gplv2+ce.html From volker.simonis at sap.com Mon Jan 28 10:31:58 2019 From: volker.simonis at sap.com (Simonis, Volker) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:31:58 +0000 Subject: EG Meeting Minutes: Mon 14 Jan 2019 In-Reply-To: <3a52da6e-45c9-4ee5-8c96-4ea83cbf356b@default> References: <3a52da6e-45c9-4ee5-8c96-4ea83cbf356b@default> Message-ID: <1a846eb4016846338d70147df2c14942@sap.com> Hi Iris, thanks for the minutes - looks great as always ?? Just found a few little typos: Eclipsea -> Eclipse "feature was renewed for another release then received no additional feedback" should probably read "feature was renewed for another release that received no additional feedback" "was in line what how things worked" should probably read "was in line with how things worked" Regards, Volker ________________________________ From: java-se-spec-experts on behalf of Iris Clark Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 6:49:56 PM To: java-se-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net Subject: EG Meeting Minutes: Mon 14 Jan 2019 Hi. I've attached minutes for our meeting on 14 Jan. Please provide update to this thread as necessary. Thanks, Iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Wed Jan 30 06:02:22 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:02:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 386 (Java SE 12) Specification -- DRAFT 28 Message-ID: Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/12/spec/draft/java-se-12-draft-spec-28/ This draft includes the following changes: - Spec, Section 4 "Component JSR Specification": Add MR for JSR 269 - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 28 Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/spec/ As always, feedback on this and other work in progress is welcome. Thanks, Iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Wed Jan 30 06:03:06 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:03:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 386 (Java SE 12) Specification -- DRAFT 29 Message-ID: Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/12/spec/draft/java-se-12-draft-spec-29/ This draft includes the following changes: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 29 Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/spec/ As always, feedback on this and other work in progress is welcome. Thanks, iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Wed Jan 30 06:03:27 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:03:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 388 (Java SE 13) Specification -- DRAFT 5 Message-ID: <5a9ac27b-6c59-48f0-b9f7-bc891b8dfee7@default> Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/13/spec/draft/java-se-13-draft-spec-05/ This draft includes the following changes: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 5 Once JEPs are Targeted for JDK 13, I'll add the "Feature summary" and "Feature details" sections. Similarly, if any APIs or non-API features are removed, I'll add the "APIs removed" or "Non-API features removed" sections as appropriate. This JSR uses JCP version 2.11 as defined in JSR 387. The next JCP milestone is PR, scheduled for Summer 2019. Until then, draft releases of the Specification and Reference Implementation will be provided on a regular basis. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/13/spec/ Thanks, iris From iris.clark at oracle.com Wed Jan 30 06:02:41 2019 From: iris.clark at oracle.com (Iris Clark) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:02:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSR 386 (Java SE 12) Specification -- DRAFT 4 Message-ID: Hi. An updated draft of the Specification is available here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/se/12/spec/draft/java-se-12-draft-spec-04/ This draft includes the following change: - Annexes 1 and 2: Updates based on build 4 The next JCP milestone is PR. I anticipate submission to the PMO in early November and publication a few days later. As usual with milestones, we'll take a snapshot of the current Specification and submit it. I expect additional DRAFTs before PR for newly Targeted JEPs, removed/deprecated APIs, etc. Links to the JEP/CSR Dashboards, latest Specification, latest JavaDoc API and diffs, and latest RI binaries may be found on this page: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/spec/ As always, feedback on this and other work in progress is welcome. Thanks, Iris