Comments on the straw man...

[Mikael Grev]

> I could, alternatively, have waited and posted a more-complete proposal,
> but that would no doubt have triggered cries of "NIH".  (Such cries have,
> sadly, already been raised.)  I could have chosen one of the existing
> proposals as a starting point but that would've been seen, rightly, as
> heavy-handed.  Neither of these alternatives would have been a good way
> to begin an effort to build consensus around the ultimate design.

A fourth way might have been to blog that closures was again on the table because of new time constraints. That the right amount of complexity is probably something in the middle and with that input if the developer community could unite behind something like BGGA but without control structures (or FCM without JCA).

To me that would have a good possibility to unite.

But, if you are 100% confident that you can get unification around a new proposal, implement and test it in time for Java 7 then that's fine. I just find it pretty risky.

About the crying. If you have three-four very serious proposals, developed by really smart people, using hundreds of hours of work and you still squeeze in a new Sun made proposal in between, what did you expect?

Cheers,
Mikael