[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-lambda-dev
Subject:    Re not being dicks
From:       jkuhnert () gmail ! com (Jesse Kuhnert)
Date:       2010-04-20 23:23:15
Message-ID: y2l7926817e1004201623y22401464sf7b74d9f563d2173 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Just a guess but maybe Alex isn't even allowed to discuss it right
now. Doesn't match what you'd expect from previous history on this
list.

I really hope Oracle isn't treating the evolution of the java language
as "just another product" which is only revealed on Christmas day. It
does sound possible though depending on how much internal change has
happened.

Not disclosing at least some indication of direction would probably
make lots of people worried about language changes and the platform in
general. Hopefully all will be well though..

On Tuesday, April 20, 2010, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> Alex-
>
> Given the lack of progress on project lambda evidenced over this mailing
> list in the past couple of months, the previously published schedule appears
> unlikely. ?I am skeptical of Oracle's continued commitment to this project.
> Either (a) progress has been rapid but kept internal to Oracle, in
> contradiction with the previously stated goal to develop the specification
> in the open, or (b) there has been no progress, in contradiction with the
> previous promise to devote a sufficient number of skilled language designers
> and implementers to complete the work within the published schedule.
>
> I understand that priorities can change, especially in the wake of a
> corporate merger, but rather than pretending that the previous commitments
> don't exist, it would be very nice to be told which is the current state of
> affairs.
>
> Cheers,
> Neal
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com>
>> wrote:
>> > There is no need to lobby for mutable up-level variables, method
>> > references, exception transparency, extension methods, etc, since they
>> > are all mentioned in the strawman. The draft spec will get round to them
>> > in good time. Before anyone asks for a schedule, I don't have one.
>>
>> We have an upper bound on the schedule based on (a) jdk7's now-extended
>> schedule <http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/milestones/>, which has
>> the jdk7 implementation "Feature complete" on June 3, and (b) Mark
>> Reinhold's commitment to devote a sufficient number of skilled language
>> designers and implementers to complete the work by then <
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev/2009-December/000122.html>.
>> ?We can work backwards from that, assuming that a penultimate specification
>> with all features described will be open to revision based on issues found
>> during public review:
>>
>> 2010-06-03 JKD7 "feature complete" in the master workspace
>> 2010-05-21 Last TL integration preceding FC
>> 2010-05-20 Last minute integration of project lambda implementation
>> 2010-05-06 Final draft spec for all included features distributed for
>> (successful) 2-week review
>> 2010-04-22 Semifinal draft spec with all included features distributed for
>> 2-week review
>>
>> This schedule is absurdly compressed (it leaves no time for an
>> implementation to respond to spec changes or code review), but I was just
>> trying to get an upper bound on how long we can expect to wait for a
>> feature-complete spec (including mutable up-level variables, method
>> references, exception transparency, extension methods, function types,
>> mapping to JVM concepts, etc). ?It looks like we should expect the team
>> working on project lambda to publish a detailed specification describing all
>> the aspects within the next week or two.
>>
>> This doesn't account for the possibility that Mark is unable or unwilling
>> to honor his commitment on behalf of his employer for some reason, for
>> example an Oracle decision to reduce the priority of work on core Java
>> relative to when Mark made the commitment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Neal
>>
>
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]