Context and expectations

[mark.reinhold at oracle.com]

2012/7/19 16:05 -0700, david.lloyd at redhat.com:
> ...
> 
> As I've often said in ##java, politeness is always defined in the
> context of one's local culture.

It's clear that you have a lot of expertise to bring to this effort, and
that's great.  Statements that go beyond the bounds of ordinary civil
technical discourse, however, are not welcome here or on any other
OpenJDK mailing list.  That's the local culture in this particular
community.

I make no claim to know all the answers.  I'm happy to have my views and
opinions questioned because I usually learn something in the process, and
like you I prefer direct arguments to beating about the bush.  I do not,
however, want to see impolite or insulting language on this list.  It
drains people's energy, and it discourages participation.

As to requirements, as I mentioned on another thread recently I agree
that the current document is a mix of requirements and design choices,
and it needs a rework.  That's the purview of the module-system JSR EG,
which will start its work in due course.

At the same time, I'm not a big believer in the pure waterfall-style,
requirements-driven approach to software engineering.  Sometimes,
especially in large problem domains where there are many possible
solutions, it's worth exploring and prototyping one or more specific
new design directions before finishing a proper requirements document.

That's what we've been doing here, and we've learned an awful lot in the
process.  Yes, our approach is based on our particular experiences and
intuitions, and no, we don't expect that everyone will agree with it.
The EG might ultimately choose an entirely different direction, but
whatever happens I think the end result will be better for having been
informed by this work.

- Mark