Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Eclipse Jetty and EE4J
Greg,

I think that example is indeed not pretty, but actually argues for why RIs facilitate lazy specifications.   If the process required several implementors to implement the draft and do interop testing before going final, than such poor specifications would be noticed earlier, without making one implementors version the defacto standard regardless of merit.

Note also that most implementations continue to be developed after the specification is pronounced final, and who is to say that an RIs  subsequent development direction actually expresses the intent of the expert group?  If difficult problems are subsequently discovered, surely they should be taken back to the expert group for resolution rather than be left in the hands of one specially anointed implementation?

I absolutely agree on that part. I always disliked the fact that some people refer to the RI as the single source of truth for aspects which aren't defined explicitly or not clear enough in the spec. I don't see any good reason why other implementations cannot be developed during the specification process. Especially with an open TCK. The TC39 process for example even requires "two compatible implementations which pass the acceptance tests" before a feature is moved to the final stage (see [1]). IMO this would lead to better specs and TCKs and prevent "lazy specifications".

Christian



--
Christian Kaltepoth

Back to the top