But this is a completely nonsensical argument. Standardization is slow because developing a standard means that you need to get people to buy into it and adopt it. That takes time. There are no shortcuts. The same will have to be true for Jigsaw. If it really gets adopted it will take a long time.
Are you suggesting it doesn't matter whether Eclipse, IBM, Oracle, Progress, etc. adopt it? If it does matter it will take time. There is no magic in the world that anyone can use to anoint anything a standard. This is a really false argument on its face. You cannot just wish for something to be adopted and have it happen. That's why I say we are dealing with a false debate here. We are drawn into a comparison of Jigsaw *as it might become* versus OSGi *as it already is*. OSGi is a standard - Jigsaw is not. We can suppose that Jigsaw might become a standard, but can we really say the time it will take for Jigsaw to be as widely adopted as OSGi would be time well spent? Eric On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote: > I think one of the most compelling arguments cited was actually *not* > getting necessary changes worked out through the OSGi standards body. > > Standards body == slow. > > Given that there are clear things OSGi is missing that Jigsaw needs and the > non-goal of Jigsaw replacing OSGi, bypassing it makes sense. > > There are other things that really gave me pause (e.g. the emphasis on > native packaging to the exclusion of cross-platform portable packaging > approaches!!!), but by-passing OSGi seems like a non-issue. > > -- > Jess Holle > > P.S. I'd contrast this with by-passing log4j, for instance, where log4j > could have easily been extended to do everything Sun had in mind and had no > weighty standards body to contend with. > > > Eric wrote: > > This time issue is another false argument that attempts to justify > incorrect behavior - and I mean incorrect with regard to the Java > community. > > It takes a lot more time to start something from scratch than to work > with something that already exists. I don't just mean the development > of something, but its adoption as a standard. Unless, of course, > that's not what Jigsaw folks intend. > > Eric > > On Jun 20, 10:24 pm, Josh Suereth <joshua.suer...@gmail.com> > <joshua.suer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Can we stop the name-calling? On the scala list serves, I usually reserve > pictures of fluffy,furry, cute and cuddly kittens to help quell heated > pointless arguments. > > If you listen to the podcast again, you'll notice they specifically say that > they didn't feel Sun could afford the time waiting for the OSGi-alliance to > update themselves based on Sun's requirements. To this extent I do agree > that Java really needs modularity. However it is also understandable how > this would make the OSGi camp feel. Sun is basically saying, "Although you > may have a good product, we can't affrod to wait around for your standards > committee. We're going to do what we need and let OSGi follow along." This > is far different from Sun's previous approaches (think EJB). > > The good news is that it sounds like the Jigsaw + OSGi folks are at least > talking. I don't think a merged approach to modularity will take long to > follow the release of JDK 7. That is of course, assuming Jigsaw succeeds. > > I think the biggest complaint coming from OSGi users (myself included) is > that I don't want to have to deal with the complexity of 2 modularity > tools. It's painful enough dealing with 2-3 different logging mechanisms > accross 4-5 libraries. Competition is good, but integration is hard. > > I'm just waiting for the modularity communities to start making "abstract > modules" that define services that can be implemented by venders. Anyone > remember CORBA? > > - Josh > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
