Yes, that's what they keep saying. I'm sure they mean that they speak when they see each other in the hallways at Java One, or after a presentation. Or something like that.
But there is no participation in any OSGi expert group by Jigsaw folks. And there is no Jigsaw JSR for anyone else to participate in. The Jigsaw folks can say anything they want to anyone informally - and they do say a lot of things - but there is no formal exchange of ideas and proposals. That is the point. Without that, there's no way to bring things together. Eric On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com>wrote: > > But they do communicate with the OSGi team. > > On Jun 22, 7:43 pm, Eric Newcomer <enewco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No, the point is that Jigsaw proposes to be a standard. OSGi already is > > one, and I don't mean in the academic sense. I mean that it has been > widely > > adopted and used. My point is that the Jigsaw folks are talking about > their > > effort as if it were already the equal of OSGi, when it is far from it. > > > > I wish I knew what you guys were all talking about with respect to the > OSGi > > supporters vs Jigsaw supporters. To me this sounds like the principal > > arriving in the middle of a fight at the schoolyard, and not knowing who > > started it, can only blame each fighter equally. > > > > If we in the OSGi community invite the Jigsaw folks to participate (and > Sun > > is definitely a member of OSGi as well as the relevant expert groups), > and > > they say they will, but then they don't, and we complain about that, is > that > > a valid compliant or not? > > > > Eric > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Lloyd Meinholz > > <meinh...@javabilities.com>wrote: > > > > > Being a standard doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Corba, EJB 1 > and > > > 2 are standards. Spring and Hibernate even eclipse are defacto > standards, > > > but not official standards. Emphasizing OSGI being a standard doesn't > help > > > you argument IMO. I also don't agree that retrofitting OSGI to meet the > > > needs of Jigsaw is quicker. It may be, but not necessarily. > > > > > As a total outsider to the modularization stuff, I have to say that my > > > experience is that the OSGI supporters that I see appear to be much > more > > > irrational than the Jigsaw supporters. That turns me off and I think > hurts > > > adoption of this technology. The same kind of community behaviour is > one > > > reason I really don't care for RoR. Yes, I could just grow up and > ignore the > > > jerks, but why not work with a group that doesn't include them? There > are > > > plenty of interesting things to work on. > > > > > Lloyd > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Eric Newcomer <enewco...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
