A reminder of Project Lambda's scope

[Alex Buckley]

Schedule information for Lambda will be shared when available.

Resourcing decisions are out of scope for this list, but I am sure that 
any resources assigned to Lambda will be directly or indirectly visible 
on this list.

Alex

On 4/26/2010 11:00 AM, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Even though there is no legal obligation for Oracle to respond, there
> definitely is a strong moral reason to do so.
> 
> Some people on this list have definitely gone way above and beyond
> random discussions, if Oracle wants to continue to receive "free"
> developer contributions they should at least play a little fair right?
> This is just wrong.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>> Alex-
>>
>> Given the lack of progress on project lambda evidenced over this mailing
>> list in the past couple of months, the previously published schedule appears
>> unlikely.  I am skeptical of Oracle's continued commitment to this project.
>> Either (a) progress has been rapid but kept internal to Oracle, in
>> contradiction with the previously stated goal to develop the specification
>> in the open, or (b) there has been no progress, in contradiction with the
>> previous promise to devote a sufficient number of skilled language designers
>> and implementers to complete the work within the published schedule.
>>
>> I understand that priorities can change, especially in the wake of a
>> corporate merger, but rather than pretending that the previous commitments
>> don't exist, it would be very nice to be told which is the current state of
>> affairs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Neal
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> There is no need to lobby for mutable up-level variables, method
>>>> references, exception transparency, extension methods, etc, since they
>>>> are all mentioned in the strawman. The draft spec will get round to them
>>>> in good time. Before anyone asks for a schedule, I don't have one.
>>> We have an upper bound on the schedule based on (a) jdk7's now-extended
>>> schedule <http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/milestones/>, which has
>>> the jdk7 implementation "Feature complete" on June 3, and (b) Mark
>>> Reinhold's commitment to devote a sufficient number of skilled language
>>> designers and implementers to complete the work by then <
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev/2009-December/000122.html>.
>>>  We can work backwards from that, assuming that a penultimate specification
>>> with all features described will be open to revision based on issues found
>>> during public review:
>>>
>>> 2010-06-03 JKD7 "feature complete" in the master workspace
>>> 2010-05-21 Last TL integration preceding FC
>>> 2010-05-20 Last minute integration of project lambda implementation
>>> 2010-05-06 Final draft spec for all included features distributed for
>>> (successful) 2-week review
>>> 2010-04-22 Semifinal draft spec with all included features distributed for
>>> 2-week review
>>>
>>> This schedule is absurdly compressed (it leaves no time for an
>>> implementation to respond to spec changes or code review), but I was just
>>> trying to get an upper bound on how long we can expect to wait for a
>>> feature-complete spec (including mutable up-level variables, method
>>> references, exception transparency, extension methods, function types,
>>> mapping to JVM concepts, etc).  It looks like we should expect the team
>>> working on project lambda to publish a detailed specification describing all
>>> the aspects within the next week or two.
>>>
>>> This doesn't account for the possibility that Mark is unable or unwilling
>>> to honor his commitment on behalf of his employer for some reason, for
>>> example an Oracle decision to reduce the priority of work on core Java
>>> relative to when Mark made the commitment.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Neal
>>>
>>