archie at dellroad.org
Fri Mar 14 22:19:09 UTC 2014
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Gibbons <
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> wrote:
> May I remind folk that the compiler-dev mailing list is for discussions
> about javac itself. It is not a place for language design discussions, or
> for proposing changes to JLS.
> Language changes are done by JSRs, under the governance of the JCP.
Since I started this discussion ... my apologies if this is the wrong place.
The reason I started here is because before the initial post I asked Joe
Darcy where to start with proposals for language changes and he said use
the JEP process... and according the JEP process documented in JEP 1:
> Much of the work behind a successful JEP will, then, involve building
> consensus for the proposal by convincing some Reviewers to review it and
> some Group or Area Leads to endorse it.
> This process does not mandate any particular method for reaching that
> goal. It is expected, however, that the typical new proposal will start as
> an idea explored informally and shaken out within a specific Group, then
> drafted as a JEP for further review and comment, then endorsed by that
> Group's Lead and later the relevant Area Lead, and then submitted for
> acceptance by the OpenJDK Lead. Discussions along the way will usually take
> place in e-mail, but review meetings may be useful for particularly large
> or contentious proposals. The results of any such meetings should be
> reported to the JEP's discussion list for the record.
So this is the "start as an idea explored informally and shaken out within
a specific Group" step.
But JEP 1 also says:
This process does not in any way supplant the Java Community Process. The
> JCP remains the governing body for all standard Java SE APIs and related
> interfaces. If a proposal accepted into this process intends to revise
> existing standard interfaces, or to define new ones, then a parallel effort
> to design, review, and approve those changes must be undertaken in the JCP,
> either as part of a Maintenance Review of an existing JSR or in the context
> of a new JSR.
So you're right there would also have to be a JSR as well. I have not
gotten that far yet... and it doesn't seem appropriate to go there until
the idea has been "sanity checked" by the folks who know the most about the
JLS and would be impacted.
I'm completely open to suggestions on how to proceed.. and hope other folks
might also get interested in one or more of these ideas.
Archie L. Cobbs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the compiler-dev