I'd like to 'me-too' Romain Guy and say that OSGi advocates annoy me. There it is, OSGi advocates. Do with this information what you wish. Just know that whipping on any attempt of Sun to join the modularization game is exactly what makes people want to hand you some valium, so - spectacularly- well done on proving Romain Guy's point.
I don't like jigsaw's sparse technical documentation either, but I do know that having a 'module' keyword is fantastic, and having a sun java installer that is modularized is similarly fantastic. On Mar 26, 1:50 pm, Weiqi Gao <weiqi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Neil Bartlett wrote: > > 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. > > It seems to me that OSGi is the fracturing force. So could OSGi please > just go away? > > I have nothing against OSGi and the above paragraph is merely to > illustrate a point. The point is that fracturing is inevitable. The > sooner the vendors start to thinks of ways to make their pet mechanisms > work together for their customers the better. > > Just because some one invented OSGi twenty years ago doesn't mean others > can't invent something similar to counter it. Think IE vs. Netscape, C# > vs. Java, Eclipse vs. NetBeans, SWT vs Swing, Ruby vs. Smalltalk and > Perl, Gcj vs. Harmony vs. the JDK, Scala vs. Erlang, JavaFX vs. Flex vs. > Silverlight, java.util.logging vs. Log4j, SOAP vs. CORBA, etc. The list > goes on and on. And all the UNIXes. And all the Linux distributions. > And Windows vs. the Mac. And the GPL vs. the Apache License. > > Fracture leads to variety and variety leads to survival. > > Trying to get the whole world to use only one mechanism is not going to > work. > > Had Sun allowed Java to fracture a little on Windows, we would be > writing Windows applications in Java rather than in C#. > > Had Sun not allowed Java to be implemented elsewhere and in > non-conforming ways, we would be writing Android applications in some > other language. PHP perhaps. I don't know. > > > > > 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 > > -- > Weiqi Gao > weiqi...@gmail.comhttp://www.weiqigao.com/blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
