I mentioned An Independent Look At the Java Community ProcessSM Program in my first java.net blog entry. The original title was "JCP Better than Open Source?" so you might imagine my expectation for fireworks at the session.

Well, first off, the turnout was pathetic. Seems to me like the piss poor voter turnout thing. Of course, those folks still like to bitch. Sigh.

Frank Sommers was allowed access to the JCP database to do a study on the characteristics of the JCP so far in a piece called Effort on the Edge.

Is the java.net community going to kill the JCP?

Doug Lea pointed out that many things don't make sense as full blown (de jure) standard. I think that, like any other premature optimization, bringing things into a standardization process before they've been fully baked in the heat of real-world abuse and competition is a recipe for adding yet another backward compatiblity anchor around our necks. Remember that in the JCP, backward compatibility is a huge constraint. Given that constraint, the JCP should be much more conservative in what they allow through since we're all going to have to live with it for a long time.

Rob Gingell made some very nice statements that the JCP is really about controlling the definitions of the java.* and javax.* namespaces. Basically, things that don't belong in those namespaces have no particular reason to go through the JCP. He was also very clear in saying that Sun is open to many ways to improve the entire world of Java -- the core platform should only represent a small part. That is, communities such as java.net are resources which people can use to help others while helping themselves without the constraints or goals of the JCP.

Is the JCP open or just a white glove around Sun's fist?

Jason Hunter ranted about the fact that Sun still has ultimate control over Java since they have veto power and control most of the JSRs (and certainly all of the core JSRs). The Spec. Leads in each JSR is basically a dictator and pretty much do what they please (within the constraints of the JCP). But, if people don't like that Spec. Lead, the JCP conventions won't allow for a competing JSR to be approved. So, there's very little incentive for the Spec. Lead to actually have to care about things like building consensus.

Mark Hapner made a good point that one of the really great things about the JCP is that it is also evolving. [In a lovely example of recursion, the JCP is evolving through the JCP.]

Jason also noted that the Spec. Lead can foist onerous business terms in addition to onerous technology.

Jason went on to rant about the fact that the JCP licensing terms often force an all or nothing approach to approving/rejecting the JSRs. There's no way to reject specific chunks and yet still remain in compliance. The easy example here is the whole fiasco around the J2EE certification.

The Bottom Line

The simple fact is that Sun controls the definition of Java through both its founder veto and through leading all of the core JSRs. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the Spec. Lead organization cannot ever be forcibly ousted. So, Sun has the power and has it forever (or until they give it up).

Bookmark blog post:

del.icio.us

Digg

DZone

Furl

Comments

Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first) | Post Comment

Sorry, but you are WRONG
I am afraid I have to disagree with you. I don't work for Sun and do not have any relationship with the company and I am a expert at JSR-207, Process Definition for Java (PD4J, for those of you that simply get to love using acronyms) . If I think the spec has gone the wrong way, I can, as an individual expert, not related to any company involved, veto the spec. I have the same power BEA, Novell and others have at that group and I am still a simple mortal human being.
So, if you are saying Sun holds the power or that a spec leader is a dictator, I am sorry to tell you, but you are veeeery wrong. Anyone at the EG has this power and that makes it a really powerful open and efficient process.

Posted by: mister__m on June 14, 2003 at 06:27 AM

Sorry, but you are WRONG

You might want to read the JCP documents. The Spec. Lead most definitely has that power and everyone on that panel (Jason Hunter, Doug Lea, Mark Hapner, Rob Gingell, etc.) agreed. Now, obviously, a good spec. lead is going to work very hard to foster a strong consensus.

Posted by: johnm on June 15, 2003 at 09:03 PM

Powered by
Movable Type 3.01D

java.net RSS Feeds