From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Sep 5 10:04:54 2012 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:04:54 -0700 Subject: Converting Java SE 8 (JSR 337) to JCP 2.8 Message-ID: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> The Java SE 8 JSR was originally submitted in November 2010, under the rules of JCP 2.7. When JCP 2.8 (JSR 348) was approved in October 2011 [1], Oracle publicly committed to convert all in-flight JSRs led by Oracle to JCP 2.8. To satisfy the transparency requirements of JCP 2.8 for Java SE JSRs we had to update the OpenJDK Terms of Use, which required spending lots of quality time with attorneys. That was finally done this past July [2], at which point this EG began its work [3]. JCP 2.8 also requires us to have a public issue tracker, but the OpenJDK JIRA system isn't available yet [4][5]. I've therefore set up an issue tracker on java.net [6]; we'll migrate issues from that system to the OpenJDK system when the latter becomes available. To convert an existing JSR to JCP 2.8, finally, requires answering a set of questions posed by the JCP PMO [7]. Appended below are my intended answers to those questions. EG members -- To complete the conversion of this JSR to JCP 2.8 I now ask each of you whether you agree to this change. Please answer in a reply to the EG list, so that it's visible for all to see. Thanks, - Mark [1] https://blogs.oracle.com/pcurran/entry/no_more_smoke_filled_rooms [2] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/tou/ [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-experts/2012-July/000000.html [4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2012-March/000120.html [5] https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/moving_monarchs_dragons [6] http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVA_SE_8 [7] http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version ---- Answers to JCP 2.8 conversion questions for JSR 337 (http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version) What is the specific URL for the document archive? http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/spec/ What is the specific URL for the Issue Tracker? http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVA_SE_8 What is the specific URL for the EG communication archive? http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-experts/ What is the description of your communications channel/how the public should provide feedback? Comments on specific elements of draft specifications are best communicated via the issue tracker. Other feedback may be sent to the comments address, java-se-8-spec-comments at openjdk.java.net, the archives of which are public. How will you consult with the Expert Group of your JSR on new Expert Group nominations? I will ask if anyone has anything to say for or against an incoming nomination. How will you provide details of the Expert Group nominations for your JSR to the public? Details will be provided on the publicly-readable EG list. From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Sep 6 15:08:32 2012 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:08:32 -0700 Subject: Modularity in Java SE 8 In-Reply-To: mark.reinhold@oracle.com; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:57:24 PDT; <20120717155724.887FD1CA6@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20120906220832.5B295856@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2012/7/17 8:57 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > ... > > I therefore propose to defer the addition of a module system and the > modularization of the Platform to Java SE 9. This is by no means a > pleasant choice, but I think it's preferable to delaying Java SE 8 until > the modularity work is complete. I'd like to reach a decision on this issue by this time next week (Thursday 2012/9/6). EG members -- Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this proposal, or else explain what further information or discussion you think is needed. Thanks, - Mark From kevinb at google.com Thu Sep 6 17:19:34 2012 From: kevinb at google.com (Kevin Bourrillion) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:19:34 -0700 Subject: Modularity in Java SE 8 In-Reply-To: <20120906220832.5B295856@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120717155724.887FD1CA6@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <20120906220832.5B295856@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: Since my impression is that we lack a clear strategy for making this happen in time for SE 8 without badly delaying it, I vote aye. On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM, wrote: > 2012/7/17 8:57 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > > ... > > > > I therefore propose to defer the addition of a module system and the > > modularization of the Platform to Java SE 9. This is by no means a > > pleasant choice, but I think it's preferable to delaying Java SE 8 until > > the modularity work is complete. > > I'd like to reach a decision on this issue by this time next week > (Thursday 2012/9/6). > > EG members -- Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this > proposal, or else explain what further information or discussion you > think is needed. > > Thanks, > - Mark > From aph at redhat.com Fri Sep 7 01:07:35 2012 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:07:35 +0100 Subject: Modularity in Java SE 8 In-Reply-To: <20120717155724.887FD1CA6@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120717155724.887FD1CA6@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <5049AB47.4030006@redhat.com> On 07/17/2012 04:57 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > I therefore propose to defer the addition of a module system and the > modularization of the Platform to Java SE 9. This is by no means a > pleasant choice, but I think it's preferable to delaying Java SE 8 until > the modularity work is complete. I agree with you that this is the right thing to do. As well as the implementation problems I am concerned that there is still some opposition to this among the wider Java community. I hope that the delay until Java SE 9 will allow us to make progress on both of these issues. Andrew. From SPOOLE at uk.ibm.com Sun Sep 9 01:30:07 2012 From: SPOOLE at uk.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:30:07 +0100 Subject: Converting Java SE 8 (JSR 337) to JCP 2.8 In-Reply-To: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: hi Mark. I agree to this change. From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com To: java-se-8-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net, Date: 05/09/2012 18:05 Subject: Converting Java SE 8 (JSR 337) to JCP 2.8 Sent by: java-se-8-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net The Java SE 8 JSR was originally submitted in November 2010, under the rules of JCP 2.7. When JCP 2.8 (JSR 348) was approved in October 2011 [1], Oracle publicly committed to convert all in-flight JSRs led by Oracle to JCP 2.8. To satisfy the transparency requirements of JCP 2.8 for Java SE JSRs we had to update the OpenJDK Terms of Use, which required spending lots of quality time with attorneys. That was finally done this past July [2], at which point this EG began its work [3]. JCP 2.8 also requires us to have a public issue tracker, but the OpenJDK JIRA system isn't available yet [4][5]. I've therefore set up an issue tracker on java.net [6]; we'll migrate issues from that system to the OpenJDK system when the latter becomes available. To convert an existing JSR to JCP 2.8, finally, requires answering a set of questions posed by the JCP PMO [7]. Appended below are my intended answers to those questions. EG members -- To complete the conversion of this JSR to JCP 2.8 I now ask each of you whether you agree to this change. Please answer in a reply to the EG list, so that it's visible for all to see. Thanks, - Mark [1] https://blogs.oracle.com/pcurran/entry/no_more_smoke_filled_rooms [2] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/tou/ [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-experts/2012-July/000000.html [4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2012-March/000120.html [5] https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/moving_monarchs_dragons [6] http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVA_SE_8 [7] http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version ---- Answers to JCP 2.8 conversion questions for JSR 337 (http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version) What is the specific URL for the document archive? http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/spec/ What is the specific URL for the Issue Tracker? http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVA_SE_8 What is the specific URL for the EG communication archive? http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-experts/ What is the description of your communications channel/how the public should provide feedback? Comments on specific elements of draft specifications are best communicated via the issue tracker. Other feedback may be sent to the comments address, java-se-8-spec-comments at openjdk.java.net, the archives of which are public. How will you consult with the Expert Group of your JSR on new Expert Group nominations? I will ask if anyone has anything to say for or against an incoming nomination. How will you provide details of the Expert Group nominations for your JSR to the public? Details will be provided on the publicly-readable EG list. 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 SPOOLE at uk.ibm.com Sun Sep 9 01:40:18 2012 From: SPOOLE at uk.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:40:18 +0100 Subject: Java SE 8 EG Introductions In-Reply-To: <20120823225046.5C2E3DBE@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120823225046.5C2E3DBE@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: I'm Steve Poole - I work for IBM in a group called the "Java Technology Centre" (or Center depending on your geographical leaning). I don't have a wonderful title - probably because I've become a fixture in the group. I've been working on Java VM's and SDKs since before Java was even 1. I don't have a blog etc. Am I too old to start? From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com To: java-se-8-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net, Date: 23/08/2012 23:50 Subject: Java SE 8 EG Introductions Sent by: java-se-8-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net I think we EG members are known to each other, at least by reputation, but for those following along at home I think it'd be helpful for us to introduce ourselves, providing links to online bios where possible. I'm Mark Reinhold, Chief Architect of the Java Platform Group at Oracle. My online bio is here: http://mreinhold.org/ . - Mark 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 aph at redhat.com Mon Sep 10 00:10:44 2012 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:10:44 +0100 Subject: Converting Java SE 8 (JSR 337) to JCP 2.8 In-Reply-To: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <504D9274.8040608@redhat.com> On 09/05/2012 06:04 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > The Java SE 8 JSR was originally submitted in November 2010, under the > rules of JCP 2.7. When JCP 2.8 (JSR 348) was approved in October 2011 > [1], Oracle publicly committed to convert all in-flight JSRs led by > Oracle to JCP 2.8. > > To satisfy the transparency requirements of JCP 2.8 for Java SE JSRs we > had to update the OpenJDK Terms of Use, which required spending lots of > quality time with attorneys. That was finally done this past July [2], > at which point this EG began its work [3]. > > JCP 2.8 also requires us to have a public issue tracker, but the OpenJDK > JIRA system isn't available yet [4][5]. I've therefore set up an issue > tracker on java.net [6]; we'll migrate issues from that system to the > OpenJDK system when the latter becomes available. > > To convert an existing JSR to JCP 2.8, finally, requires answering a set > of questions posed by the JCP PMO [7]. Appended below are my intended > answers to those questions. > > EG members -- To complete the conversion of this JSR to JCP 2.8 I now ask > each of you whether you agree to this change. Please answer in a reply > to the EG list, so that it's visible for all to see. Yes. Andrew. From aph at redhat.com Mon Sep 10 00:26:20 2012 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:26:20 +0100 Subject: Java SE 8 EG Introductions In-Reply-To: <20120823225046.5C2E3DBE@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120823225046.5C2E3DBE@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <504D961C.4070306@redhat.com> On 08/23/2012 11:50 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > I think we EG members are known to each other, at least by reputation, > but for those following along at home I think it'd be helpful for us to > introduce ourselves, providing links to online bios where possible. I'm Andrew Haley, Java SE technical lead at Red Hat. I don't have a public bio -- perhaps I should have -- but I've been at Red Hat and Cygnus (one of Red Hat's acquisitions, and the world's first free software company) for more than fifteen years. For many of those early years, most of my work was on GCC; before Sun freed its Java, I was one of the first developers of GCJ. I supported Sun during the process that freed Java, offered my advice from time to time, and have been working on OpenJDK ever since. Andrew. From kevinb at google.com Mon Sep 10 06:59:06 2012 From: kevinb at google.com (Kevin Bourrillion) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:59:06 -0700 Subject: Converting Java SE 8 (JSR 337) to JCP 2.8 In-Reply-To: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: Yes. On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:04 AM, wrote: > The Java SE 8 JSR was originally submitted in November 2010, under the > rules of JCP 2.7. When JCP 2.8 (JSR 348) was approved in October 2011 > [1], Oracle publicly committed to convert all in-flight JSRs led by > Oracle to JCP 2.8. > > To satisfy the transparency requirements of JCP 2.8 for Java SE JSRs we > had to update the OpenJDK Terms of Use, which required spending lots of > quality time with attorneys. That was finally done this past July [2], > at which point this EG began its work [3]. > > JCP 2.8 also requires us to have a public issue tracker, but the OpenJDK > JIRA system isn't available yet [4][5]. I've therefore set up an issue > tracker on java.net [6]; we'll migrate issues from that system to the > OpenJDK system when the latter becomes available. > > To convert an existing JSR to JCP 2.8, finally, requires answering a set > of questions posed by the JCP PMO [7]. Appended below are my intended > answers to those questions. > > EG members -- To complete the conversion of this JSR to JCP 2.8 I now ask > each of you whether you agree to this change. Please answer in a reply > to the EG list, so that it's visible for all to see. > > Thanks, > - Mark > > > [1] https://blogs.oracle.com/pcurran/entry/no_more_smoke_filled_rooms > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/tou/ > [3] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-experts/2012-July/000000.html > [4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2012-March/000120.html > [5] https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/moving_monarchs_dragons > [6] http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVA_SE_8 > [7] http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version > > ---- > > Answers to JCP 2.8 conversion questions for JSR 337 > (http://jcp.org/en/resources/change_jcp_version) > > What is the specific URL for the document archive? > > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/spec/ > > What is the specific URL for the Issue Tracker? > > http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVA_SE_8 > > What is the specific URL for the EG communication archive? > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-experts/ > > What is the description of your communications channel/how the public > should provide feedback? > > Comments on specific elements of draft specifications are best > communicated via the issue tracker. Other feedback may be sent to > the comments address, java-se-8-spec-comments at openjdk.java.net, the > archives of which are public. > > How will you consult with the Expert Group of your JSR on new Expert > Group nominations? > > I will ask if anyone has anything to say for or against an incoming > nomination. > > How will you provide details of the Expert Group nominations for your JSR > to the public? > > Details will be provided on the publicly-readable EG list. > From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Tue Sep 11 08:27:38 2012 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:27:38 -0700 Subject: Converting Java SE 8 (JSR 337) to JCP 2.8 In-Reply-To: mark.reinhold@oracle.com; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:04:54 PDT; <20120905170454.D536F588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20120911152738.E0445588@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2012/9/5 10:04 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > ... > > EG members -- To complete the conversion of this JSR to JCP 2.8 I now ask > each of you whether you agree to this change. Please answer in a reply > to the EG list, so that it's visible for all to see. Thanks for your affirmative replies. I've just now asked the JCP PMO to complete the conversion process. - Mark From SPOOLE at uk.ibm.com Fri Sep 14 14:00:53 2012 From: SPOOLE at uk.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:00:53 +0100 Subject: Modularity in Java SE 8 In-Reply-To: <20120906220832.5B295856@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: mark.reinhold@oracle.com; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:57:24 PDT; <20120717155724.887FD1CA6@eggemoggin.niobe.net> <20120906220832.5B295856@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: IBM agrees with the deferral of full runtime modularity support to Java 9. However we would still like to see visible progress during Java 8 timescales over defining the metadata format and starting to define module boundaries, via a broader participation in OpenJDK as well as creation of a modularity JSR. We all agree that modularity will be a disruptive technology, so taking actions early that start to guide developers into the modular world will be beneficial. We should not assume that it can be achieved over a single release. Runtime enforcement can wait for Java 9 but other changes and definitions can and should continue in Java 8. From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com To: java-se-8-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net, Date: 06/09/2012 23:08 Subject: Re: Modularity in Java SE 8 Sent by: java-se-8-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net 2012/7/17 8:57 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > ... > > I therefore propose to defer the addition of a module system and the > modularization of the Platform to Java SE 9. This is by no means a > pleasant choice, but I think it's preferable to delaying Java SE 8 until > the modularity work is complete. I'd like to reach a decision on this issue by this time next week (Thursday 2012/9/6). EG members -- Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this proposal, or else explain what further information or discussion you think is needed. Thanks, - Mark 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 mark.reinhold at oracle.com Fri Sep 21 09:13:47 2012 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:13:47 -0700 Subject: Modularity in Java SE 8 In-Reply-To: spoole@uk.ibm.com; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:00:53 BST; Message-ID: <20120921161347.2E856A4B@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2012/9/14 14:00 -0700, spoole at uk.ibm.com: > IBM agrees with the deferral of full runtime modularity support to Java 9. > However we would still like to see visible progress during Java 8 timescales > over defining the metadata format and starting to define module boundaries, via > a broader participation in OpenJDK as well as creation of a modularity JSR. We > all agree that modularity will be a disruptive technology, so taking actions > early that start to guide developers into the modular world will be beneficial. > We should not assume that it can be achieved over a single release. Runtime > enforcement can wait for Java 9 but other changes and definitions can and > should continue in Java 8. I completely agree that the transition to a modular Platform will be disruptive, and that we should do all that we can ahead of time to help developers prepare for it. I also agree that we should continue to make solid progress toward the overall goal during the Java SE 8 timeframe, both in OpenJDK and in the eventual module-system JSR. That is, indeed, already the plan. I'm not completely sure whether you're suggesting that we actually define a module-metadata format and module boundaries in Java SE 8, ahead of the introduction of the run-time module system. If so then I can't agree to such a plan: It runs a big risk of getting something fundamentally wrong. If that happens then we'd have to fix it in SE 9, and fixing fundamental design flaws after the fact almost always leads to a poor end result. - Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Fri Sep 21 09:23:15 2012 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:23:15 -0700 Subject: Modularity in Java SE 8 In-Reply-To: mark.reinhold@oracle.com; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:08:32 PDT; <20120906220832.5B295856@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20120921162315.2D9EFA4B@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2012/7/17 8:57 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > ... > > I therefore propose to defer the addition of a module system and the > modularization of the Platform to Java SE 9. This is by no means a > pleasant choice, but I think it's preferable to delaying Java SE 8 until > the modularity work is complete. Thank you all for your responses. We all agree that full run-time support for modules should be deferred to Java SE 9, and a strong majority clearly agrees that the whole modularity effort should be deferred to Java SE 9. The addition of a module system and the modularization of the Platform is therefore deferred entirely to Java SE 9. - Mark