Very helpful. Thanks.
Now from looking at the diffs the following remarks/questions:
-in "installerrorcodes" you removed the extra data information in a couple of
error cases. This seems to be a drawback. Can you please explain why you removed it.
From: Volker Bauche
Sent: Montag, 10. Februar 2014 20:36
Subject: [jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] PFD candidate upload
donÄt caring about what I said some hours ago :-) I have now created HTML
diffs between the lastest spec lead draft and the now published PFD candidate
draft similar to what Michael Lagally has done for JSR-360.
You can find the zip with the diff analysis in the expert goup area of the
JSR-361 page under jcp.org at
Hope this is helpful.
Best regards -
Am 10.02.2014 11:31, schrieb Volker Bauche:
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)
- there are corrections of typos
- there are changes done for all or many files for formal or legal
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 applicable).
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:
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.
Sent: Samstag, 8. Februar 2014 10:20
Subject: [jsr361-observers] [jsr361-experts] PFD candidate upload
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 JCP.org 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
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
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
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 javax.microedition.media.Manager 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
MESPEC-2922 SWM: TaskManager has method addStatusListener but adds
MESPEC-2920 SWM: undefined behavior for TaskManager's
MESPEC-2918 SWM: Pausing a task contradiction
MESPEC-2917 SWM: Canonical way to detect whether the Suite is
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
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
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
[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: PFD candidate upload