Bill, Apologies if I took Reinier's comment (quoted below) out of context - but he did say "even 'jigsaw fanboys' " ... I interpreted this as acknowledging that there are "Jigsaw fans" that's all. I certainly didn't mean to imply that everyone posting to the list was a fan.
>2) Where is it written that jigsaw will not support runtime >separation? I've heard time and time again that jigsaw offers a way to >ESCAPE doing that (by way of the local dependencies mechanism), which >suggests that by default jigsaw will use classloader-based tricks, or >repackaging, to let you do runtime separation. However, this >discussion seems focussed on the idea that jigsaw can't do this. Where >is this written? I know, I know - jigsaw lacks specs, and we all (even >the 'jigsaw fanboys') are very annoyed at that, but there's >nevertheless quite a bit of info out there. If this information is NOT >out there, I think we're jumping the gun. What I was trying to say (risking another screw up ;-) is that I can understand why people like Project Jigsaw. It is completely understandable why Project Jigsaw has its supporters. Its goals are good goals, but as Reinier has also said, it's hard to figure out what is really going on with the project, and in particular how it will or will not relate to what OSGi is. Eric On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Bill Robertson <billrobertso...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Eric, > > I'm not trying to get on you personally about anything, however I > don't recall anybody proclaiming themselves as being fans of Jigsaw > here, or anywhere, and even if somebody did that still doesn't mean > that it applies to the entire group. I don't think its fair to use > the term, because of the negative connotations of the term. > > However, if I misunderstood your intent, then I apologize. I also > respect your right to disagree with my opinion on the matter. So no > harm intended. > > Thanks and good luck. > > On Jul 2, 1:36 am, Eric Newcomer <enewco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bill, > > > > I was very simply and only saying this because some people had identified > > themselves as such on this list. This seems like another case of the > > problem - to object to my using a label someone used for themselves is > very > > strange. > > > > If you look at this from a purely technical angle there is no good reason > > for the Jigsaw project to exist. You can disagree about that, and it's > > fine, but to get after me for using a term someone else has already used > is > > very strange indeed. > > > > I cannot see how pointing out that competition and politics is involved > is a > > negative or a criticism. This is a fact of life, that's all. When that > > happens some people are going to align themselves one way or another. > That's > > it. Nothing negative implied. > > > > Eric > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Bill Robertson > > <billrobertso...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Eric, I don't think it is fair to call somebody who accepts the Jigsaw > > > project's decision a "Jigsaw fan." I can't speak for anybody else, > > > but I don't see their decision as a partisan issue. The engineers > > > with the fingers on the keyboard seem like reasonable people, and they > > > say that this is the best decision for their circumstances (technical > > > and deadline), so I accept that. Its not an issue of rooting for not- > > > OSGI v.s. OSGI for me. I'm sure others feel this way as well. > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > On Jul 1, 6:52 pm, Eric Newcomer <enewco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Thanks very much. In the end I realized I over reacted, and the > right > > > thing > > > > was to take it down. I also appreciate where things are right now, > i.e. > > > in a > > > > better conversation. > > > > > > One of the things Dick said about this (paraphrasing) was that it > might > > > have > > > > been different if I had a better experience with the community. > After > > > > following Java Posse discussions for a while now I agree that's the > case. > > > > > > It can sometimes be difficult to identify business/political > motivations > > > in > > > > technical discussions, and I think Dick also was right to say some > folks > > > > posting to the list were just trying to score political points. I > would > > > say > > > > this was what triggered my over-reaction. > > > > > > One thing I would like to say in terms of a comment on this topic is > that > > > I > > > > think everyone recognizes the goals of Jigsaw as being valid, and I > don't > > > > blame anyone for being a fan of Jigsaw. But many of its goals have > > > already > > > > been achieved in OSGi, and I would hope that the Jigsaw fans can > > > understand > > > > why those of us who had invested in OSGi before Jigsaw was started > raise > > > the > > > > question of why OSGi was not used as the starting point. I know that > the > > > > Jigsaw folks replied to these points, but I think it's also > > > understandable > > > > to question the replies, given the historical rivalry of Sun vs IBM > over > > > the > > > > future of Java, and the use of OSGi in Eclipse. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Bill Robertson < > > > billrobertso...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > > You took some heat for posting this in the first place, so I think > its > > > > > only fair that you be recognized for doing the right thing. > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 9:19 am, Eric <enewco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I took this down. Apologies for the over- reaction. > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 5:24 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" < > phil.swen...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://modualrit.blogspot.com/2009/06/jigsaw-posse.html > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
