> > You are certainly not the only loudmouth. 3 out of every 4 blogs I > read that praise the virtues of OSGi actually just give me a thousand > mile overview in one paragraph then spend the next 4 beating on sun. > Trust me, that is not the right strategy for convincing non-believers > to join your side. >
+1, it seems to filter in from IBM and I dare say Eclipse Foundation suffers from it. Not flame bait, just my own personal experience dealing with them on a professional basis. Kirk > On Mar 26, 6:35 pm, Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Reinier, >> >> It's a shame you choose to see it that way. You know, if Sun had >> admitted Java had a modularity problem 10 years ago then OSGi would >> not have been necessary. Today OSGi is the standard, Jigsaw is way too >> late and stands in opposition to the rest of the industry. >> >> I really don't want to whip Sun either. Like the curate's egg, most of >> Sun is excellent and I feel they should not be throwing away goodwill >> on this issue. >> >> Finally, "OSGi Advocates" are not an aggregated mass. I am a single >> opinionated loudmouth. Hating other OSGi advocates for what I say is >> just stupid. >> >> Regards, >> Neil >> >> On Mar 26, 4:40 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
