Lambda the Ultimate

inactiveTopic JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?
started 6/28/2002; 1:06:48 AM - last post 7/1/2002; 6:30:54 AM
Ehud Lamm - JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?  blueArrow
6/28/2002; 1:06:48 AM (reads: 464, responses: 4)
JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?
The JCP receives the most criticism about its pace; many hold it responsible for slowing Java's development. The process involves numerous steps: First a vendor, group, or organization submits a Java Specification Request (JSR)a request to develop a new spec or revise an existing one. Depending on the type of specification, either the Standard and Enterprise Editions Executive Committee (EC) or the Micro Edition EC reviews the request. Once the appropriate EC approves the JSR, the submitting organization forms an expert group, which drafts the JSR and submits it through numerous community and public reviews before proposing its final approval ballot. After the final release, any needed revisions go through a maintenance review. The process can span just a few months or drag out for years, depending on the specification and expert group; JAXR and JAX-RPC each took less than 18 months to develop.

More about language evolution. If even things like the JCP are considered to be too slow, is there any hope for language standards?

Interesting coverage of several JSRs related to web services.

Posted to general by Ehud Lamm on 6/28/02; 1:07:10 AM

Alex Moffat - Re: JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?  blueArrow
6/30/2002; 8:27:04 AM (reads: 475, responses: 0)
Some of these "standards" that are being set today seem to be driven mostly by the marketing department's desire to be in on some, in fact any, standard setting process that can be talked up in the company's marketing materials. We have dueling standards where there seems little desire to arrive at a reasonable standard that people can actually appply; that defines the things people currently want to use. Instead they are speculative and try to define unexplored areas in a sort of wild west intellectual land grab with no experience about what would actually be useful. I think that the best standards evolve after enough experience has been accumulated to be able to tell what's useful and what's not, the worst come from some company's desire to define a standard around whatever it is they think they can sell this year. Of course, deciding when the right moment is to define a standard is still a tricky issue.

Ehud Lamm - Re: JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?  blueArrow
7/1/2002; 1:22:46 AM (reads: 466, responses: 0)
I think we should first separate between 'true' language standards and libraries/APIs etc.

Standard libraries are important (if not essential) for language success these days. They are usually not as interesting as language stadnards, but they are important, and have impact on marketing. I am not sure this is a bad thing.

I think that as a programmer it is often better to have to choose between two competing standards than to choose one out of 30 publicly available libraries.

It seems to me that so-called standard libraries and APIs are usually too large and complicated, but are also often better designed than the stuff you find simply by searching the net

Alex Moffat - Re: JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?  blueArrow
7/1/2002; 5:41:04 AM (reads: 452, responses: 1)
I agree with what you say but still find the standards churn that I think I'm seeing to be a problem. One of the ways of ensuring that your product is not replaced by some simpler disruptive product is to constantly try and increase the amount of functionality that the marketplace requires. I'm worried that some of this is false functionality, driven by desire to sell product on the part of vendors, not by any problem that customers want to solve. Anyway, perhaps I'm just getting tired :)

Ehud Lamm - Re: JCP adequately preparing Java for Web services?  blueArrow
7/1/2002; 6:30:54 AM (reads: 504, responses: 0)
Well, I guess that in some cases your reading of the situation is correct...