Dear Expert Group,
This is a second request for comments on the JMS 2.0 Early Draft. It's a bit quiet out there!
I'd like expert group members to give an indication of whether this draft is ready for review by the community. You're
not being asked to state that there are no issues, merely whether you think it is good enough for members of the
community to review in detail.
I know that as this JSR has always been operated in a transparent manner the community can already see the draft, but
the Early Draft is a formal stage in the JCP process and a useful pause for breath where we say to the community "now is
a good time for you to have a proper look at the draft spec and tell us what you think"
Please respond by Friday 17th February. If you need more time, please let me know. Detailed comments and corrections are
welcome as well. I'm happy to talk on the phone to anyone.
I've pasted below the official procedure related to the Early Draft
(this is from
http://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#3)
Note that it states that the Early Draft should "ideally take place when the Specification still has some unresolved issues"
Nigel
-----------------------------------------------------
When the Expert Group decides that the first draft is ready for review, the Spec Lead shall send the draft, along with
any additional files required for review, to the PMO. The Spec Lead should also suggest the length of the Early Draft
Review period if the Expert Group feels it should go beyond the minimum 30 days.
Multiple Early Drafts (and Early Draft Reviews) are encouraged where the Expert Group feels that this would be helpful.
3.2 EARLY DRAFT REVIEW
Refinement of the draft Specification begins when the PMO posts it to the JCP Website and announces the start of Early
Draft Review. The goal of Early Draft Review is to get the draft Specification into a form suitable for Public Review as
quickly as possible by uncovering and correcting major problems with the draft. Early Draft Review is an early-access
review, and should ideally take place when the Specification still has some unresolved issues. The public's
participation in Early Draft Review is an important part of the process since in the past, comments from the public have
raised fundamental architectural and technological issues that have considerably improved some Specifications.
3.2.1 UPDATING THE DRAFT DURING EARLY DRAFT REVIEW
If the Expert Group makes major revisions to the draft during Early Draft Review the Spec Lead should send the revised
draft, along with a synopsis of the changes, to the PMO, which shall publish these online and make them available for
download by the public.
After the Early Draft Review period has ended, the Expert Group can make any additional changes to the draft it deems
necessary in response to comments before submitting the draft to the PMO for the next review.
-----------------------------------------------------
On 05/02/2012 19:43, 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
>
>
>
>
>