mikeb at mitre.org
Wed Sep 15 06:56:12 PDT 2004
I thought the purpose of a JSR was not to have it
included in J2SE, but in the J2SDK (the development kit).
That seems to be a logical step after getting to 1.0.
Before cancelling it, could you please list the work
we would have to do, and then give us 3 months
to see if we can do that work?
Jason Hunter wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> FYI, I plan on writing in to cancel JSR-102 with the following explanation:
> "Withdrawn at the request of the submitter. The project was completed
> under the open source development model and can be found at
> This will appear on the cancelled JSR list at
> It's a long story why we didn't pursue the JSR. The short version is
> that after getting JSR-102 accepted I found out the JCP didn't support
> an open source development model or open source licensing model. I
> worked for two years to change that as Apache's representative to the
> JCP. We succeeded, but afterward I didn't have any desire to continue
> in the field of JCP politics! I didn't want to cancel the JSR lest
> someone else want to take up the mantle, but that hasn't happened.
> People always seemed more interested in JDOM 1.0 than in JDOM the JSR.
> The biggest benefit JSR-102 promised was inclusion in J2SE. I've
> discovered that's a heck of a lot of work though. During EC meetings I
> heard IBM complain about the amount of work foisted on them for getting
> an API into J2EE. Nevermind a volunteer group getting something into
> J2SE! We'd have an easier time becoming an "endorsed standard" like SAX
> where Java just blesses and includes an externally created API.
> So that's my plan. Here's a last chance for community input before I
> fire the cancellation request...
More information about the jdom-interest