Re: maxEntries in contents()

There is a provision in the JDP that certain minor changes don't require
  a vote, I don't know if the sort of change you have in mind would be
considered "minor" or not (I don't *think* we have actually made any
changes under the "minor change" process yet so I can't point to any
examples).

That still leaves the "no non-normative text" issue, I would consider
what Dan wrote non-normative, and therefor a non-starter for going into
the spec. Wording like "the maximum number of entries to be yielded by
MatchSet.next calls" or "the maximum number of entries to return before
the MatchSet is considered exhausted" I think are normative (I have to
talk to my lawyer about whether or not they are "minor"...) and are
possible. Would you find such wording an improvement? (I still have to
decide if I prefer it to what is there now).

As to the "JavaDoc == spec" question, I don't think I have anything to
add. I have done it both ways and there are advantages and disadvantage
to both (for writer and reader), someone just needs to tell me if we are
switching.

Jeff Ramsdale wrote:
> I consider clarification text to be on the order of a bug fix (if a
> minor one) that should not require spec-like approval. If the use of
> JavaDoc as a spec repository is a procedural inhibitor to improving
> Jini in a way that doesn't itself change the spec then I would suggest
> the spec shouldn't reside in the JavaDocs. But then again I feel that
> way regardless. There's a lot of spec-motivated boilerplate text in
> the JavaDocs that makes it more difficult than it need be to use the
> Jini libraries. If the spec is to be holy, then how about we make the
> JavaDoc less so--that way the masses can get their lay interpretation
> of the spec in the modern tongue.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: John McClain - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wed 11/30/2005 11:16 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: maxEntries in contents()
>
>
>
> I have to admit, when I read "the maximum number of entries to remove
> from the set via MatchSet.next calls" in Dan's message (for some
> reason
> I got Dan's message first....) I was a bit confused too....
>
> Not sure why I didn't write something like "the maximum number of
> entries to be yielded by MatchSet.next calls", or maybe "the maximum
> number of entries to return before the MatchSet is considered
> exhausted". I suspect I had latched onto the idea of next deleting
> entries from the match set and wanted to stick with that notion.
>
> As for modifying the JavaDoc I need to think about that. There is the
> procedural issue that it is now an approved community standard and
> certain types of changes would require a vote. More deeply we (Sun's
> Jini team) try to keep non-normative text (like motivations, uses
> cases,
> examples, etc.) out of our specs.

--
BTW, if you want to reply to this message, please direct your reply
to the list, thanks

John McClain                                    [email protected]
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Burlington, MA

It could be said that without sticky tape there would be no such thing
as biocontainment.              -Richard Preston

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVASPACES-USERS".  For general help, send email to
[email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".

To view past JAVASPACES-USERS postings, please see:
http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/javaspaces-users.html