Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] SI vs CI vs II

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> A proposal was made to reduce confusion
by eliminating the concept of
> a Specification Implementation and just say that at least one Compatible
> Implementation under an open source license must be available in order
to
> finalize a spec.  That seems fine to me.  Once the spec
is finalized, there
> doesn't seem to be a need to distinguish between SIs and CIs.
Right
- whether we call it SI or CI, not sure why we terminology for both based
on one type being open source and the other being closed. The requirement
is simply that there must be at least one SI/CI available under an open
source license. There can be more than one and it shouldn't matter how
long after the spec is finalized that a 2nd or 3rd SI/CI is declared as
such (so long as it fulfils the compatibility criteria). 
 
Regards,
Ian





From:
       Kenji
Kazumura <kzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
       06/09/2018
07:11
Subject:
       Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] SI vs CI vs II
Sent
by:        jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

SI was defined as the replacement
of RI in JCP.
In my understandings, SIs are only approved when a spec is finalized as
RI is so.
Once the spec is finalized, no other SI is approved.
And, in order to demonstrate the spec and TCK,
SI must be an open source, but CI is not necessary.
These difference are what I am thinking.


In message <80d11a37-06d3-f23f-8efe-c1dbd26da792@xxxxxxxxxx>
   [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] SI vs CI vs II
   Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Several people have been confused about the difference between a
> Specification Implementation, a Compatible Implementation, and an
> Independent Implementation.
> 
> A proposal was made to reduce confusion by eliminating the concept
of
> a Specification Implementation and just say that at least one Compatible
> Implementation under an open source license must be available in order
to
> finalize a spec.  That seems fine to me.  Once the spec
is finalized, there
> doesn't seem to be a need to distinguish between SIs and CIs.
> 
> And what about Independent Implementations?  Does an II need
to be independent
> of any CI that ever appears?  Or does it just need to be (transitively)
> independent of the CI(s) that were available when the spec was finalized?
> The latter seems to be the intent.
> 
> The intent is that, by reading only the spec, and without use of an
> implementation produced in conjunction with the spec development,
can you
> produce an implementation that functions as the spec requires?
> 
> I don't think we need a super strong definition of an Independent
> Implementation.  I think it's only relevant in determining the
quality
> and completeness of the spec.  No II may ever exist, and that's
fine.  If
> one does exist, we just want to think of it as another Compatible
> Implementation.
> 
> If people agree, we can update the definitions accordingly.
> 
> (BTW, the current draft has removed the definition of Independent
Implementation
> even though it continues to be referenced.)
> _______________________________________________
> jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
> jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
> 

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU