Popular @
Forum Controls
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
NetBeans 6: Matisse Updates
NetBeans 6 delivers great updates to the Matisse GUI builder. Spend a few minutes with Roman Strobl and get an expert briefing on what's new and what has changed. (sponsored)
Introduction to Groovy Part 3
In this, the third and final installation of Andres' Introduction to Groovy series, you learn about how Groovy handles variable numbers of arguments, named parameters, currying, and more about Groovy operators. Including, some new operators.
Easier Custom Components with Swing Fuse
Swing Fuse (actually just Fuse), is a framework designed to make it easier to create your own custom desktop components. In this article, Daniel Spiewak shows you how to get started and provides sample source code you can download.
Benchmark Analysis: Guice vs Spring
Willam Louth shows how he uses JXInsight Probes to investigate probable performance issues with code bases that he is not familiar with. He also highlights possible pitfalls in creating a benchmark, as well as in the analysis of results.
Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
URL: mustang collaboration
At 10:31 AM on Mar 18, 2005, cedric crowe
wrote:
Fresh Jobs for Developers Post a job opportunity
https://mustang.dev.java.net/collaborate.html
This is a pretty dramatic shift if you ask me.
30 replies so far (
Post your own)
Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
Yeah, this is a major shift, if it works. This is something so big to many developers, I would expect Sun to market such a huge shift. In the end, it is really needed for Java to remain competitive.Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
I agree, this will be something really big if it works. I really hope it will work, because this is exactly what so many developers (including me) were hoping for. Regarding marketing, I think Sun should keep it low profile until they can judge if the process works, or if they only created a second BugParade.Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
I suspect the OpenSource crowd wont be impressed with:1. The amount of effort required to be a submitter
2. The centralized approach taken to bug submission and handling.
But I think they've done the right thing, and perhaps in time, they can decentralize it somewhat and bring it closer to the OpenSource way.
James
Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
That's a great news! I really hope that some guys will meet the conditions at the bottom of the page so that external resources will be able to contribute cool stuff to the JDK.Romain Guy's Java Weblog, #ProgX, Jext
Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
> I suspect the OpenSource crowd wont be impressed> with:
>
> 1. The amount of effort required to be a submitter
> 2. The centralized approach taken to bug submission
> and handling.
I'm mostly unimpressed by the license , obviously.
cheers,
dalibor topic
GNU Classpath - Core Libraries
IRC: irc://irc.freenode.org/#classpath | irc://irc.freenode.org/#kaffe
Anyone have a simple JDK bug that needs fixing?
> How often have you wanted to fix a JDK bug yourself,> but just weren't allowed to change the code? You can
> now contibute your own bug fixes to Mustang!
>
> https://mustang.dev.java.net/collaborate.html
>
> This is a pretty dramatic shift if you ask me.
Cool! I'll try going through their process and see
how hard it is to submit a bug fix.
Anyone have a suggestion for a nagging bug that
should be easy to fix? If so, let me know and
I'll use it as an example.
Andy
Re: Anyone have a simple JDK bug that needs fixing?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4320050Re: Anyone have a simple JDK bug that needs fixing?
Why not pick something from the top 25 list in the bugparade.Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
I see a risk in this.Sun may start thinking that fixing bugs is a user problem. Opensorce developers that allready have the right spirit to do things like this may find the Java licence to restrictive.
In the end it could mean that java ended up as abandonware.
If Sun can't handle the workload of fixing bugs they should opensource their implementation, but keep the java name and have strict specification what java is supposed to contain and do, and have strict test that any java implementation needed to pass to be called java or even javalike.
Re: Anyone have a simple JDK bug that needs fixing?
Heh, tried thatNone of those are easy or they would have been fixed
by now. Even the few that look easy scare the heck out
of me, because they must have hidden secrets
(mustn't they?)
Re: Anyone have a simple JDK bug that needs fixing?
Thanks! Yea, I'll try that one.I already signed their agreement and submitted
fixes for two bugs - one last night, and one this
morning. I'll write up the details in a separate
post.
Andy
Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
> I see a risk in this.>
> Sun may start thinking that fixing bugs is a user
> problem. Opensorce developers that allready have the
> right spirit to do things like this may find the Java
> licence to restrictive.
Ah, but you're forgetting about the ClosedSource
developers that already have the right spirit.
I bet the number of proprietary software developers
who need specific JDK fixes outnumber OpenSource
developers by a huge margin.
>
> In the end it could mean that java ended up as
> abandonware.
That's not going to happen. For that to happen
now, not only would Sun have to pull all developers
off Java, but they'd have to now stop accepting
fixes from the outside.
>
> If Sun can't handle the workload of fixing bugs they
> should opensource their implementation,
No positive move from Sun to make Java "more open"
shall go unpunished by FOSS zealots.
> java name and have strict specification what java is
> supposed to contain and do, and have strict test that
> any java implementation needed to pass to be called
> java or even javalike.
So now not only can you see the Java source,
you can also fix it. It's as if any improvement that's
less than full GPL is a bad thing to some people.
Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
>So now not only can you see the Java source,>you can also fix it. It's as if any improvement that's
>less than full GPL is a bad thing to some people.
I couldn't care less if its GPL or not. The possibility to see and fix things is OK for me. Being a bit lazy, I think the best would be if Sun managed it, and actually assigned the resources necessary make it work without me looking at it or fixing it. I don't really understand these free software fans, to me java is a platform, they don't cry bloody hell about intel not opensourcening their processor why should java be any different.
However, it would be nice with a licence that made it possible to ship java with free downloadable Linux distros and could be installed by default without having the user press any extra "Say OK to Sun licence" buttons,
as this would make java more widely used.
I havn't read the new licences yet. Any idea if they are
better in this respect?
Re: Contribute bug fixes to the JDK!
> I see a risk in this.>
> Sun may start thinking that fixing bugs is a user
> problem. Opensorce developers that allready have the
> right spirit to do things like this may find the Java
> licence to restrictive.
I would guess that the OpenSource fanatics, who refuse to touch anything that has not been approved by their god, the OSI, is almost negligible. Yes, they are very vocal, but I always have the feeling that the reason for this is that they have too much time at their hands. I, being a closed source developer, only have the goal that Java becomes better.
> In the end it could mean that java ended up as
> abandonware.
Cmon, that's ridiculous. If you look at sourceforge, it seems to me that an open source procet has an almost 70% chance of being abandoned, so I do not see why not being open source is a risk factor here.
> If Sun can't handle the workload of fixing bugs they
> should opensource their implementation, but keep the
> java name and have strict specification what java is
> supposed to contain and do, and have strict test that
> any java implementation needed to pass to be called
> java or even javalike.
Well, isn't there an article just below that mentiones some new Java licenses for doing exactly that? The fact that the almighty OSI, ultimate judge of good and evil, did not approve it, is more a religious problem.