Romain, it's not like that at all. I believe there will be huge damage to the Java ecosystem from having multiple competing module systems. You want to write a module, which module system do you support? It's as bad as what Microsoft tried to do to Java.
If you don't want to use OSGi I really really don't mind. If you want to fracture the Java platform, I mind a lot. On Mar 26, 8:12 am, Romain Guy <romain....@mac.com> wrote: > Technical merits aside, the OSGi advocates are really starting to piss > me off. They go rant against anything that is even remotely like OSGi > and they go rant against anything that doesn't use OSGi and could > perhaps potentially use it. This is *not* a good way to advocate a > technology. > > On Mar 25, 5:37 pm, JodaStephen <jodastep...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Joshua Marinacci said > > "Jigsaw is the modularity planned to be built into the JDK. It's > > purpose in life is to make the JRE modular. No other modules system, > > including OSGI, has the ability to do that because they simply can't > > work at a low enough level to make things work (such as JVM changes). > > > Of course that conveniently ignores Apache Harmony, which is a JDK > > modularised using OSGi. I think you'll find there are some deeper > > forces going on here. > > > phil.swenson said: > > "jigsaw is core to Java 7 isn't it?" > > > No. Jigsaw is core to JDK7, not Java7. Huge difference. > > > Stephen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
