JSR 227 Status

433 views
Skip to first unread message

Wes Fang

unread,
May 4, 2011, 8:53:02 AM5/4/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Latest status shows: "Withdrawn"

What does this mean? Any impact with regards to future of ADF BC?

-Wes

Simon Lessard

unread,
May 4, 2011, 9:10:29 AM5/4/11
to adf-met...@googlegroups.com
Hi Wes,

I don't think it's going to have any impact on ADF BC and most likely no impact on the ADF Databinding layer either. I guess Oracle prefers to work solo on that layer as the community refused to standardize it. Now Oracle can freely update their data binding without waiting for an EG. However, it does mean that you won't hear that the ADF Databinding are an implementation of JSR-227 in a sale pitch anymore. All in all, nothing bad at all really. Also, I guess the overlap with CDI helped the decision.


Regards,

~ Simon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the ADF Enterprise Methodology Group (http://groups.google.com/group/adf-methodology). To unsubscribe send email to adf-methodolo...@googlegroups.com

All content to the ADF EMG lies under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).  Any content sourced must be attributed back to the ADF EMG with a link to the Google Group (http://groups.google.com/group/adf-methodology).



--
Simon Lessard, ADF Architect
CMA CGM SYSTeMS
4, quai d’Arenc, 13235 Marseille cedex 02, France
( +1.418.930.0279 (Canada)
( +04.13.63.54.29 (France)

Wes Fang

unread,
May 4, 2011, 11:12:16 AM5/4/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Sounds good. Thank you Simon

-Wes
> *CMA** **CGM SYSTeMS
> **4, quai d’Arenc, 13235 Marseille cedex 02, France*
> *(** **+**1.418.930.0279 (Canada)*
> ***(** **+04.13.63.54.29 **(France)*

Jan Vervecken

unread,
May 4, 2011, 3:37:44 PM5/4/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
hi Wes

Thank you for pointing that out.
Indeed, currently at http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=227
it says "Status: Withdrawn" and "Stage: Withdrawn; Start: 02 May,
2011".

Some JSR 227 related forum threads are:
- Mar 2008 : "current status JSR 227"
at http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=627579
where Ted Farrell from Oracle comments "... 227 is very close to being
final. We just need to make the final push ..."
- Oct 2010 : "How to get an attribute value using JSR 227 API ?"
at http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=1738664
were some "dead in the water" comments are made

Looking forward to some comments from Oracle on this "Withdrawn"
status change, as this seems to make the "standards based" idea for
ADF "more diluted".

regards
Jan Vervecken

Jean-Marc Desvaux

unread,
May 5, 2011, 8:00:17 AM5/5/11
to adf-met...@googlegroups.com
Jan, 

Interesting links. I like your point about the diluted "standard based" idea of ADF and now a pure Oracle unavoidable model layer in the ADF architecture.
I also think that in the JSR 227 case, where it seems mainly Oracle has been working on during the past years,  it makes no change really in term of openness or not.
I agree with Simon, "Oracle can freely update their data binding without waiting for an EG" can only sounds as a good thing for ADF.

Jean-Marc

Jan Vervecken

unread,
May 5, 2011, 8:23:43 AM5/5/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Thanks for your reply Jean-Marc.

I don't think Oracle has done much "waiting for an EG" to evolve ADF.
Evolving in a range from "standard based" towards "very proprietary"
might not always be considered "a good thing for ADF".
Still looking forward to some comments from Oracle on this "Withdrawn"
status change.

regards
Jan Vervecken

Nicklas Karlsson

unread,
May 5, 2011, 8:28:30 AM5/5/11
to adf-met...@googlegroups.com
Perhaps Oracle doesn't want to drag the JCP through more rubberstamping. It has been done a lot before by the Big Guys (Oracle, IBM, RedHat, Sun) who due to political reasons haven't wanted to oppose each others while the smaller members have just been nodding along. 

If there is likely to be only one implementation and one framework adopting it, there is no great reason to standardize it. Withdrawing it makes it easier for them to change it in shorter lifecycles.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the ADF Enterprise Methodology Group (http://groups.google.com/group/adf-methodology). To unsubscribe send email to adf-methodolo...@googlegroups.com

All content to the ADF EMG lies under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).  Any content sourced must be attributed back to the ADF EMG with a link to the Google Group (http://groups.google.com/group/adf-methodology).



--
---
Nik

Jan Vervecken

unread,
May 5, 2011, 8:51:53 AM5/5/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Thanks for your reply Nik.

We can probably come up with many different "Perhaps Oracle ..."
scenarios/suggestions.
But it is primarily Oracle that can give some relevant insight on
this.
So, still looking forward to some comments from Oracle on this
"Withdrawn" status change.

regards
Jan Vervecken

Wes Fang

unread,
May 6, 2011, 9:32:47 AM5/6/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Although I'm not too familiar with with the intricacies of the JCP and
JSR 227 history. I would like to mention that before working with ADF
back in the JDev 10g days, I was impressed by the fact that Oracle
made an effort to push forward a standard for the Java community.
Also, donating ADF Faces to Apache was seen as a good step towards
wider adoption. Like many of us in this group (non oracle employees)
who has made evangelistic contributions for ADF, I am certainly
perplexed by this status change. I work with ADF because the
organization I joined maintained a legacy application developed with
Forms and coming from a open source background I thought I it would be
nice to change of pace. I would not have to keep track of hipster
frameworks or worse reading code from seospamcodeforum.com. I believe
working with ADF has certainly granted me this freedom but I have also
lost ability staying versatile within IT market. Enough digression, I
would also like to hear official comments as Jan said.

-Wes

Shay Shmeltzer

unread,
May 7, 2011, 12:56:29 PM5/7/11
to adf-met...@googlegroups.com, ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Oracle  has decided to withdraw the proposed JSR-227 since the other members of the Java community process didn't show interested in pursuing this approach further.
We don't expect this to have any further influence on the development and usage of the Oracle ADF Binding layer which Oracle is continuing to develop and expand.


Shay

Jan Vervecken

unread,
May 8, 2011, 10:20:13 AM5/8/11
to ADF Enterprise Methodology Group
Thanks for your reply Shay.

One could wonder how important it really is for software (frameworks)
to implement standards.
In the past there must have been reasons for Oracle to try to make
JSR-227 a standard, which currently don't seem to be valid reasons
anymore.
One could also wonder why it is that there is so little interest in
the JSR-227 approach to make it a standard, is there something
fundamentally wrong with this approach, or are there better
alternatives?
I think it is regrettable that Oracle seems to choose to evolve ADF
even more away from standards, in a range from "standard", over
"standard based" to "very proprietary".

regards
Jan Vervecken


On May 7, 6:56 pm, Shay Shmeltzer <shay.shmelt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oracle  has decided to withdraw the proposed JSR-227 since the other members of the Java community process didn't show interested in pursuing this approach further.
> We don't expect this to have any further influence on the development and usage of the Oracle ADF Binding layer which Oracle is continuing to develop and expand.
>
> Shay
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages