|
On 2018-09-06 2:37 PM, Ian Robinson
wrote:
> 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).
I started out skeptical about this --- I think I even made a comment
to that effect on the document --- but I agree that we can get away
with just using Compatible Implementation as a defined term.
Specification Implementation becomes "a Compatible Implementation
under an approved open source license", and that phrase should
really only be needed once when we define the exist criteria for a
Specification Version. Please note that the phrase used by Bill is
incorrect. We have a specific list of acceptable licenses.
The concept of an Independent Implementation also only really needs
to be used once, where we state that we want each Specification
Version to be of sufficient quality to enable the development of
independent implementations. Given that, I agree that it also
doesn't need to be a defined term.
If we're wrong about how often these terms needs to be used, then we
can return to defining them.
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.
Kenji, that was not my understanding. I had always thought that
there could be more than one SI. The condition was that there had
to be at least one before you could adopt a Specification Version.
It replaced the JCP RI concept only in the sense that some
demonstrable implementation has to be available before you can
finalize a spec.
HTH
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.)
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
|
