The Java Community Process(SM) Program - JSRs: Java Specification Requests

Use of JCP site is subject to the JCP Terms of Use and the Oracle Privacy Policy
JSR #209
Advanced Graphics and User Interface Optional Package for the J2ME^TM Platform
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2005-07-12 to: 2005-07-18
These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #209. The Executive Committee for ME has approved this ballot.
Votes

Ericsson AB
IBM
Intel Corp.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Motorola
Nokia Corporation
NTT DoCoMo, Inc.
Orange France SA
Philips Electronics UK Ltd
Research In Motion, LTD (RIM)
Samsung Electronics Corporation
Siemens AG
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Symbian Ltd
Vodafone Group Services Limited
Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted
View Vote Log

On 2005-07-18 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. voted No with the following comment:
Java2D should be an optional package. 
We disagree on adding some package (e.g. java.awt.font, java.awt.geom) for home device to this specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-12 Vodafone Group Services Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-14 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-14 NTT DoCoMo, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-15 IBM voted No with the following comment:
IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage.  We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction. This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model.

Sufficient technical issues have been raised on the EC mailing list recently that we vote NO. These issues include concerns with specification quality, and the request to make Java2D available separately from Swing. We believe that initiating another JSR for a standalone Java 2D subset is inappropriate and will delay the technology adoption. We ask the EG to review all the EC comments, address each of the issues raised, and resubmit the updated specification for ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-17 Samsung Electronics Corporation voted No with the following comment:
It is very important to have separate Java2D optional package for Home devices.  We recommend spec lead resubmit PR with Java2D separation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Symbian Ltd voted No with the following comment:
Please separate Java2D from Swing and resubmit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Nokia Corporation voted Yes with the following comment:
Nokia is voting for this JSR to proceed, since we see it the only means to correct it without turning the JSR down. We do not agree that the quality of  specification is good enough for this phase of the process. We vote yes just to give time for the spec lead company to find a capable person to lead the fixing of all the problems in cooperation with the EG. 
The spec still need quite a lot work.  We therefore urge and expect that the time between this PR and the final ballot will be long enough and seriously spent to appoint a spec lead, address the quality issues and the feedback from the EC, such as the optional package issue raised.
The areas from the quality point of view are for example: the copying from Swing/SE shall be reviewed  carefully and adjusted to this specification properly, for example removing references to  classes that do not exist. Spec needs corrections, more clarity and explanative text. Further we have not understood the EG to wish PlaF be taken back to the spec. And in general the PLaF portion of the JSR-209 spec does not seem complete and is also so different from the one in SE that it is hard to understand, since there is no explanative text, inheritance hierarchy missing and references to classes that do not exist.
And like many EC members have commented the 2D separation to optional package also needs to be addressed. The licensing terms should also be confirmed as the JCP process requires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Philips Electronics UK Ltd voted No with the following comment:
Philips is unable to support this JSR due to the handling of the EC ballot comments from the original JSR approval ballot.

When JSR-209 was approved (2 years ago), there were quite a number of comments on the JSR. The comment made by the largest number of EC 
members concerned the structure of the specification. Specifically that more than one optional package should be delivered.

Since then, one of the suggested candidates for an optional package (input methods) has been moved into JSR 216/217. This leaves swing and Java2D within JSR-209.

Unfortunately the public review specification only contains a single optional package. The spec lead has not given EC members any explanation for the rejection of these comments. The informal explanations which have been provided are less than credible and there has not been an opportunity for EC members to discuss these with the spec lead and/or EG.

If this JSR does not deliver a separate optional package for Java2D then markets which want richer graphics than provided by JSR 216/7 and find 
Java2D more appropriate than SVG/JSR-226 will be forced to either:
a) take Swing, even if inappropriate for that market
b) file their own new JSR for an embedded profile of Java2D. Creating a whole new JSR just to formalise that JSR-209's subset of Java2D can be used independently seems excessive. It is doubtful whether a JSR to create a different embedded subset of Java2D would in fact get approved since it would create fragmentation.

Philips still believes that JSR-209 should be delivering Java2D in a form where it can be used separately from swing.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Ericsson AB voted Yes with the following comment:
Ericsson is voting yes to allow the JSR to proceed to address the concerns raised in the EC discussions and noted here. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Siemens AG voted Yes with the following comment:
Siemens is voting YES to enable the expert group to solve the Swing/Java2D relation and additional comments and not to vote the JSR down. But the spec lead and expert group should take the EC discussion comments seriously and work towards a solution which serves the whole Java community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Orange France SA voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Motorola voted Yes with the following comment:
Motorola is voting yes in order to enable the EG to move forward. However, we expect that the issue concerning the separation of Java2D from Swing and any other ballot comments will be addressed by the EG in the next phase of the process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Intel Corp. voted Yes with the following comment:
Intel votes 'yes' to continue the work on this specification, but also strongly recommends that the EG proactively engage parties who are requesting a separate optional package for Java 2D functionality.  This issue was raised in comments from the EC at the initial JSR Ballot and it hasn't been satisfactorily addressed in this Public Draft.  The EG should revisit the issue and, if the EG decides not to have a separate Java 2D optional package, should explain their reasoning clearly and in detail in the Proposed Final Draft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB voted No with the following comment:
Sony Ericsson vote is based on that this JSR has not been able to properly cover the comments in the JSR approval balot, the JSR lacks a spec lead and there are many disagreements on how to add an advanced GUI in the J2ME stack. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-07-18 Research In Motion, LTD (RIM) voted Yes with the following comment:
RIM is casting our "Yes" vote to enable this JSR to proceed having a new SL in a reasonable time-frame, carefully study responses from the Public Review, further discuss among its EG members to prepare the Proposed Final Draft of the Specification that will address the community's concerns.

RIM agrees with the general intent of this JSR. However it also sees different EG members of this JSR giving different reasoning for not having multiple optional packages at this phase of the JSR activity. RIM would rather see a consolidated statement from the JSR to the EC.  It is very disturbing to know that this JSR has no SL leadership during the Public Review, and the JSR is unable to provide any statement back to EC to help making decisions.

RIM would like to see the JSR to propose the Java 2D package as a separate optional package in its Proposed Final Draft for the Final Approval Ballot of this JSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------