On 16/02/2017 14:42, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>> I know that it feels odd (and it is) to have this done on part of
>>>> the API and not on another part, but it was part of the internal
>>>> review process and my arguments were ignored..
>>>>
>>> I've no problems with the internal reviewers having their input but
>>> I'd have problems with them, possibly not being JAX-RS 2.1 experts
>>> affecting how the final 2.1 API will look like. I'm not keen to make
>>> a big deal out of it, the proposed API in general is of high
>>> quality, but well, I guess the final details should be finalized
>>> in this group :-)
>>
>> well.. we do code reviews and we are not going to change that. I
>> admitted that, but if I wouldn't (and now I'm thinking it was a
>> mistake), you don't have a chance to get that info.
>>
>> The reviewer in this case was the original author of this part (and
>> others) of JAX-RS API, Marek. That was also communicated out to the
>> EG, see
>> https://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/lists/jsr370-experts/archive/2017-02/message/43
>>
>> I always respond to any comment from the EG member, JCP member,
>> random users_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net mail, random tweet, etc. Everyone
>> who wants has the chance to influence the API. Of course, the
>> feedback from the EG has higher priority and importance. Also, please
>> understand that we need some feedback. It's hard to design things
>> without a need to defend the API. The process usually brings up other
>> possible approaches, which is what happened in the last case.
>>
>> I hope you are not suggesting to make the process open exclusively
>> for EG members. If not, please let's drop this topic, it is not
>> leading anywhere.
>>
> I definitely did not suggest it. You did not make a mistake, you said
> earlier there was an internal review, it is not a secret and as I
> implied the review was generally helpful.
> However I'm against having a situation where here at the experts list
> we come up with the idea that something needs to be changed and you
> will reply, well, hard luck, the internal reviewers disagree. Hope you
> see what I mean
We can deal with that when/if that happens.
I don't recall me (or any other spec lead) dropping something without
any explanation. It can happen that the explanation is not perceived
positively, but the original cause most likely won't be internal review
:) Anyway, this is too much of "what if" for me.
I see what you mean, but please have some faith in spec leads - we are
trying to do our best in the API design & delivery given the current
constraints.