Oracle Speak Up On Hologic Nomination

What Does Future Hold for JCP?

Jessica Thornsby
Oracle-Speak-Up-On-Hologic-Nomination

Oracle post a statement as to why they nominated Hologic, and bloggers speculate on what the future could be for the JCP.

Oracle have tried to shed some light on why exactly they have put Hologic forward in the JCP elections, after many members of the community accused the company of attempting to influence the forthcoming JSR votes by getting Oracle sympathisers onto the JCP. In a post to the JUG Leaders mailing list, Oracle state that their Hologic nomination is an attempt to bring some Java end-user and business perspective to the JCP committee, to balance out the standards, technologist, technology vendor, and developer community perspectives. They claim the end-user perspective has been under-represented in the past, and that “having the perspective of a company whose business depends on Java technology — not as a technology vendor, but as an informed consumer of Java technology — is valuable.”

The news that Hologic were nominated in place of recognised Java export Doug Lea, has sparked a furious debate as to the relevance of the JCP. Despite plenty of blog posts calling for an end to the JCP, there are a few with a more optimistic outlook. Tim Peierls proposes the JCP can emerge from the election with its relevance intact; if the JCP members vote for Bob Lee. Bob Lee is running as an individual, against Azul, Eclipse and Google, for one of the two open seats on the SE/EE EC. Tim Peierls is realistic about the future prospects of the JCP, stating that “Oracle’s ham-handed moves have made the prospect of a true revitalization far less likely than anyone expected a year or so ago. But it’s worth a shot, and I don’t know anyone better equipped to help make that shot than Bob Lee.”

Bill Burke is more enthusiastic about the JCP’s future, calling the current claims that the JCP is ” an unworkable entity…..plain and utter myth.” He detects some foul play by certain companies who may wish to see the JCP fail (he names SpringSource, here) or wish to create their own specification bodies (who he names as IBM,) or who would rather strike it out on their own, than collaborate (Google and SpringSource are his examples.) He lists the JCP’s past successes – getting JPA into the EE 5 specification, CDI – and what he perceives to be an increasingly open process, pre-Oracle, in regards to specifications such as JSF, Validation and JAX-RS. In Burke’s opinion, Oracle has been supportive of the EE specification process in the past, and merely needs some time to get organised after the acquisition.

The voting is currently underway.

Author
Comments
comments powered by Disqus