Skip to main content

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload

  • From: Volker Bauche < >
  • To:
  • Subject: [jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload
  • Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:31:53 +0100

Hi Thomas,

a created change log would not help much as it would not contain any other info as those you
get from your html comparison.
The reason is that there are a lot of changes in the files in total, but not all changes have the
same relevance:

- there are "real changes in the spec (like new methods, new parameters, added exceptions)
- there is improvement of the class or method description where the javadoc was detected
as not being comprehensive or where info (e.g. about the behavior in a sepcial situation)
  was missing
- there are corrections of typos
- there are changes done for all or many files for formal or legal reasons etc.

The changes interesting for you are of course only those according to bullets 1 and 2.

Therefore the best way to trace the relevant changes in the spec is the usage of JIRA tracking tool.
As done already for the last updated version, I have added to the email a list of all relevant
JIRA issues below. This list can be used as a change log and is much more useful than a created one.

The list itself (as seen below) documents the relevant changes that have been done to the spec
since the last published version.
If you are interested in a particular change, you can open the related JIRA issue, which includes
a complete description of the issue, a communication thread usually between myself and the issuer
in case not everything was clear from the beginning, and at the end as a (closing/resolved) comment
a description from my side what I have changed and where and why (and what not and why not if

This is the way I track the changes also myself (I do not have all changes in my mind that I have made
several weeks ago either :-) ) and it works well.
If you need assistance with JIRA, you can contact me at any time.

Hope this helps.
Best regards -

Am 10.02.2014 11:04, schrieb Lampart Thomas:
Hi Volker,

Thanks for the update and also the list of JIIRA items.

However I would like to point out one thing which also came up in the last 
JSR360 expert group telco:
Its still extremely difficult to find and see the changes in the spec. 
Comparing the html files also does not help much as there is a difference in 
all files (at least the date).
The JSR360 speclead promised to check if there is any way to create a 
complete change log. No feedback on this yet.
Nevertheless I would like to ask you for the same thing. Having a complete 
change log or any means to compare the html docs in a way showing only the 
real changes would be very helpful.

Looking forward to talking to the EG on Thursdays.

Best regards

-----Original Message-----

[mailto: ]
Sent: Samstag, 8. Februar 2014 10:20

Subject: [jsr361-observers] [jsr361-experts] PFD candidate upload

Dear experts,

I have uploaded the latest version of the spec being the candidate for the 
Proposed Fonal Draft mid of February for review to the expert group section 
of the site of our JSR.
Since last version, many minor improvements have been done, like changed 
parameter names, some changed methods, added missing exceptions and 
improvements in the wording of class and method descriptions.
The most significant change is the wording abou handling of permissions for 
both, MEEP applications and legacy IMP-NG applications.

I will explain this change in an expert group meeting next week, see 
invitation in separate email.

All changes are documented in the issue tracker, for a complete list of 
changes, please have a look there:

For your convenience, here comes again a list of the relevant JIRA issues 
that have been raised and resolved/closed since my last list:

MESPEC-2966     Player javadoc mentions STOPPED_AT_TIME, while there is
no such Event type
MESPEC-2959     Remove ActionsDeniedPermission
MESPEC-2957     Application Lifecycle "Active" State
javax.microedition.lui.Display.addDisplayListener(null|added listener)
MESPEC-2954     Spec clarification request: When PowerManagerException
with error code being KEEP_CURRENT_STATE may be thrown
MESPEC-2948     "Dependencies of optional MEEP 8 Components" table
needs corrections
MESPEC-2946     IMCProtocolPermission must always include <server name>
and <server value> for particular server
MESPEC-2945     MIDlet.platformRequest(String) exception clause is
MESPEC-2944     Add CellularNetwork.getByNetworkInterface method
MESPEC-2942     Section "Platform Default Character Encoding" should be
removed from MEEP spec or fixed
MESPEC-2939     microedition.profiles is mandated to not contain IMP-NG

MESPEC-2936     The javax.microedition.lui.Display colour method names
MESPEC-2935 is not final
MESPEC-2934     Provisioning needs clarification
MESPEC-2931     SWM: incorrect method name Suite.setSuiteState(.....)
MESPEC-2930     Synchronize installation error codes between SWM and
MESPEC-2929     Inconsistency in security for applications spec
MESPEC-2927     Event, EventPermission classes: Need to clarify the
non-acceptable values of "event name".
MESPEC-2923     Unexpected naming "CTLS" is in the "BNF for Parsing
Application Descriptors"
MESPEC-2922     SWM: TaskManager has method addStatusListener but adds
*TASK* listeners
MESPEC-2920     SWM: undefined behavior for TaskManager's
stop/pauseTask() methods
MESPEC-2918     SWM: Pausing a task contradiction
MESPEC-2917     SWM: Canonical way to detect whether the Suite is
already uninstalled/removed?
MESPEC-2916     SWM: What should happen when the app tries to uninstall
MESPEC-2915     SWM: Confusing sentence in SuiteManager.removeSuite()
MESPEC-2914     SWM: Javadoc for InstallErrorCodes contains
internal/non-relevant info.
MESPEC-2910     Unclear installation status code when MIDlet-Name and
LIBlet-Name provided both
MESPEC-2909     Impossible to request ssl server connection permission
via IMP-NG permission

Best regards -

This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and 
may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, 
either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for 
the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free 
from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a 
transmitted virus

[jsr361-experts] PFD candidate upload

volker.bauche 02/08/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload

Lampart Thomas 02/10/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload

Volker Bauche 02/10/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: PFD candidate upload

Werner Keil 02/10/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: PFD candidate upload

Volker Bauche 02/10/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload

Volker Bauche 02/10/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload

Lampart Thomas 02/11/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: PFD candidate upload

Volker Bauche 02/11/2014

[jsr361-experts] Minutes of EG meeting on February 13, 2014

Volker Bauche 02/13/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Minutes of EG meeting on February 13, 2014

Werner Keil 02/13/2014

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Minutes of EG meeting on February 13, 2014

Werner Keil 02/13/2014
Please Confirm