Draft JPMS Public Review specification
Neil Bartlett (Paremus)
neil.bartlett at paremus.com
Thu Mar 9 01:44:24 UTC 2017
I also agree with David. There is not sufficient consensus, including on those issues that have been prematurely marked as “Resolved”, for example #LayerPrimitives.
> On 8 Mar 2017, at 22:48, Robert Scholte <rfscholte at apache.org> wrote:
> I agree with David. There are still quite some topics marked as "Proposal posted or discussion active" of which I don't know what the final resolution would be. And for a few I know they will have impact on other topics as well.
> I will go through the list and return with a concrete list of remarks.
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 22:05:01 +0100, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Right now a Public Review definitely does not seem appropriate given that at least some of the EG still sees major problems with the draft, whereas it sends a message that there is consensus when there is not. Given the fact that there still are significant issues outstanding and disagreement within the EG, it seems likely to me that a at least a second Public Review would need to be submitted anyway, one way or another. In this light, I think it makes sense to wait at least until there's some semblance of consensus among the EG before posting the public review.
>> On 03/07/2017 10:50 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>>> At this point in time the draft specification appears to achieve the goal
>>> of this JSR. We have a small and shrinking number of open issues on the
>>> list , and I expect the resolution of those issues to require at most
>>> modest adjustments to the final draft. I therefore intend to submit the
>>> following draft to the JCP PMO to be posted for Public Review:
>>> Please let me know by 17:00 UTC next Tuesday, 14 March if you think any
>>> changes are required, or if you need more time for review.
>>> - Mark
>>>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues
More information about the jpms-spec-observers