I didn't look in very great detail but everything seems fine. The only
thing I'm not sure I understand the need for is batch delivery.
I can help socialize this with the community by writing articles and
speaking on JMS 2 if that's OK.
On 2/5/2012 2:43 PM, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> I've now finished making changes to the JMS 2.0 Early Draft. It is now
> ready for you to give it a final review before I formally submit it to
> the jcp.org.
>
> The Early Draft is the first of three formal milestones in the
> development of any JCP specification. The Public Draft is next,
> followed by the Final Draft.
>
> The "draft" Early Draft spec is in the usual place:
> http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/sources/repository/content/jms2.0/specification/word/JMS20.pdf
>
>
> The "draft" Early Draft Javadocs are in the usual place:
> http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/sources/repository/content/jms2.0/target/jms-2.0-javadoc.jar
>
>
> I have set up a number of JIRA queries to help us track what is in the
> Early Draft and what has been deferred to afterwards. I've put links
> on the JMS spec wiki:
> http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/Home#JMS_2.0_Early_Draft
>
> In short, there are 16 issues included in the Early Draft.
>
> There are 11 issues which we have already discussed but which didn't
> make it into the Early Draft due to lack of time. These will all be
> carried over for the next draft. 32 issues have been logged by members
> of the community and still await initial evaluation.
>
> In addition I have submitted 4 issues to the EJB 3.2 expert group and
> 1 issue to the Java EE platform expert group. See the links on the
> wiki for details.
>
> I've included the simplified API (JMS_SPEC-64) in the early draft, but
> the CDI annotations that build on top of it have been deferred to
> afterwards. I've created a separate JIRA issue to manage these: this
> is JMS_SPEC-70.
>
> So please take a look at the "draft" Early Draft" and let me know if
> you have any comments. This is a good time to report typos.
>
> I'm happy to receive comments and corrections from anyone, not just
> Expert Group members.
>
> The spec has change bars. (I've removed the Microsoft Word-style use
> of strikethroughs/underlinings in favour of simple changebars). A good
> place to start is the change history in section B.5.
>
> It's a bit harder to spot what changes have been made to the javadocs.
> I'm not sure what's best here and am open to suggestions. However I've
> recorded major javadoc changes in the corresponding JIRA issue. The
> API source is available in svn if anyone wants to use svn tools such
> as Eclipse to review changes.
>
> How long do you think you need to review this? If you don't have any
> comments please let me know if you are OK with the Early Draft in its
> current state. I hope we can get this submitted within two weeks, so
> we can them move on to considering additional features. I'll be asking
> for proposals for additional content in the near future, so please
> start thinking about this.
>
> If anyone in the EG would like to discuss this on the phone, either
> with me or with other EG members on a wider conference call, just say
> so and I'll arrange it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4790 - Release Date: 02/05/12
>
>