On 6/22/06, Mark Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 19:19, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> What I'm missing is an idea of the interaction between jini.org and this
>> proposed new apache project, and an idea of the interaction between the JCP
>> process and the apache project. Eg is the apache project a (reference?)
>> implementation of a bunch of JCP specs managed through jini.org (in which
>> case I'd say it needs a new name), is it a 'full' move from jini.org to
>> jini.apache.org, or something else?
>
> It has been discussed that jini.org will serve as a "information portal", with
> links to docs, specs, implementations, the starter kit, and so forth.
> The Apache project will first be the center of coding of the starter kit, and
> other useful generic tools.
>
> It has not yet been decided what exactly should happen to the specifications
> and related process (JDP). Many people like the JDP, but also recognizes the
> overhead needed to keep it running. One alternative that has been discussed
> is to let the Jini TLP manage the JDP (with a couple of amendments) as well.
I think it is good to mention there is a distinction between
specifications and standards in the Jini community. Most of the Jini
related specifications were developed by Sun in a way that allowed input
of others, but Sun was the sole entity that made the decision about
what went into these specifications. The Jini community has a democratic
process (JDP) that provides balance between commercial and individual
stakeholders and to which people could submit their specification to
have that blessed as a community approved standard (all got accepted so
far, so Sun did apparently well).
The initial goals of Jini can only be reached if compatibility is high
on the agenda of everybody involved and standards were a way to achieve
that, in the past there was even a license that commanded compatibility
but that one has been replaced by the Alv2. Also at the start of the
Jini community in 1999 it was thought of that a democratic process such
as the JDP was the best way to ensure that all stakeholders could have
their say in whether some specification would be approved as standard
and that it would unity us instead of divide.
Bringing the Jini specs (the community approved standards) into an ASF
project without a JDP like process can IMHO be seen as monopolizing
what is perceived as Jini. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing
is up to the reader ;-)
> My personal stance is that it is an issue that is not urgent, and can be
> discussed through incubation.
I disagree here, some people in the Jini community find it important to
know in advance which way this is heading, e.g. to hedge their risks
using or investing in this technology and determine their own future path.
I think Niclas' point is that this can be discussed and decided during
incubation, along with lots of other things about how the project and
community are going to work, as opposed to having to be determined in
advance. Since it seems to be an important issue in the community,
though, we should probably discuss it early on. One thing to keep in
mind is that assuming successful incubation, the Jini community will
have broad latitude in terms of decision-making processes. Part of
the incubation process is setting these things up.
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
