Moved Async Changes to Branch

[Greg Luck]

Guys

Due to widespread objections to the idea of adding async into a maintenance release of JSr107, we have moved it to a branch called async. We plan to do the maintenance release without any async additions.

For those interested in the design we came up with, see the “async” branch of https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec.

Regards

Greg Luck

web: http://gregluck.com

skype: gregrluck

yahoo: gregrluck

mobile: +61 408 061 622

[Chris Dennis]

Greg and Everyone Else,

I’d love to spend some time reviewing whats here but one thing that’s stopping me doing this is a lack of context around what exactly I’m reviewing.  I know that the plan is to commence work on a JCache 2.0 JSR of which async is one part.  I wondered if there was some more information you could provide on what the larger plan is for JCache 2.0?  Ideally I’m thinking in terms of both a holisitic “it’s an <X> that we expect people to use for <Y>”, and hopefully also a list of features that need to be added to the spec in order to be an <X>.  I guess my ideal scenario is that you have a draft of the JSR proposal you plan to send to the JCP?  Also would this JSR target Java EE?

I guess in a more general sense I’d much rather review a feature list and proposal before I start reviewing the Java signatures of a specific feature from an unknown list.

One thing that I thought might be cool would be to have a BOF at JavaOne on the “Future of JCache" where at a minimum we could have a meeting of minds on where we think it’s best to take the spec next, and where we could even get community input and feedback on these plans.  Do we think there’s enough interest on the list (or within the old 107 EG) to support such a BOF?  If we do, is there anyone who has some clout with the program committee to push such an enterprise through at this late date?  I’m more than happy to make the proposal myself, but I have a fairly spotty record with JavaOne, and I don’t want to propose something that the wider group isn’t interested in supporting.

Thoughts on this screed would be greatly appreciated

Thanks,

Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsr107" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsr107+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Greg Luck]

Chris

Brian and I are definitely committed to getting an errata release out as soon as we can. So 1.0.1 or 1.1 depending on how big it feels. 

Async could be part of a 2.0 backed by a new JSR. Transactions which we already defined and then removed from 1.0 could be there and much else. Also, with the demise of JSR347 we have a large scope for further standardisation efforts if there is demand. 

I think your suggestion of a BOF is a very good one. Do you want to set it up and invite everyone?

Regards

Greg Luck

web: http://gregluck.com

skype: gregrluck

yahoo: gregrluck

mobile: +61 408 061 622

On 28 Apr 2015, at 12:15 pm, Chris Dennis <chris.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg and Everyone Else,

I’d love to spend some time reviewing whats here but one thing that’s stopping me doing this is a lack of context around what exactly I’m reviewing.  I know that the plan is to commence work on a JCache 2.0 JSR of which async is one part.  I wondered if there was some more information you could provide on what the larger plan is for JCache 2.0?  Ideally I’m thinking in terms of both a holisitic “it’s an <X> that we expect people to use for <Y>”, and hopefully also a list of features that need to be added to the spec in order to be an <X>.  I guess my ideal scenario is that you have a draft of the JSR proposal you plan to send to the JCP?  Also would this JSR target Java EE?

I guess in a more general sense I’d much rather review a feature list and proposal before I start reviewing the Java signatures of a specific feature from an unknown list.

One thing that I thought might be cool would be to have a BOF at JavaOne on the “Future of JCache" where at a minimum we could have a meeting of minds on where we think it’s best to take the spec next, and where we could even get community input and feedback on these plans.  Do we think there’s enough interest on the list (or within the old 107 EG) to support such a BOF?  If we do, is there anyone who has some clout with the program committee to push such an enterprise through at this late date?  I’m more than happy to make the proposal myself, but I have a fairly spotty record with JavaOne, and I don’t want to propose something that the wider group isn’t interested in supporting.

Thoughts on this screed would be greatly appreciated

Thanks,

Chris

On 4/17/15, 5:12 PM, "Greg Luck" <gl...@gregluck.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsr107" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsr107+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Chris Dennis]

Okay, I’ll flesh out a proposal and submit it today before the deadline.  We can hash out the details of how exactly how we want to run things, if and or when it gets accepted.

Chris