blah.. after humbugging immutability I'm a bit scared to humbug OSGi but I suppose if someone has to do it..... Lets see, MS tried it with COM/DCOM.. failed, Smalltalk tried it with Envy.. failed.... OSGi is modeled some what on Envy from a failed attempt to port Envy to Java... (Envy was bought by IBM)
You know, I'm seeing a failed in those attempts. Hope isn't much better for Jigsaw but.... Ok, now why the failures. Well, my real world experience with some of what OSGi is trying to achieve is simple combinatorial complexity that just naturally comes with dependency management. Unless this problem can be tooled (and even then), the whole thing grows beyond a humans ability to manage it. Many systems we are building today are just way too complex for this extra level of complexity. Did I mention OSGi breaks the already broken Java classloading system? Must see talk, "Do you really get classloaders" by Jevgeni Kobanov, the Zero Turn-around guy. I'd swear he knows more about classloading than the JDK guys that devised the evil scheme we all face today (I know for sure that they consider him a PITA :-)). Is OSGi classloading any better? Hard to say. Does it solve any of the current classloading issues? My answer is none that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong). Does it create issues of it's own? Yup, just had fun with Resin, OSGi and a profiler that kept breaking. Visibility was an issue! Java packaging is already hard enough, seriously, do we really need to make it any harder? Regards, Kirk On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Chris Adamson wrote: > Looking at the TSS article, I'm surprised it took over an hour for the > personal attacks to show up in the comments. I remember the OSGi > community being much quicker to anger than that. > > On Jun 23, 4:22 pm, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.theserverside.com/news/2240037102/OSGi-Not-Easy-Enough-to-... >> >> "We have changed our views on OSGi over the years, and one of the >> reasons for that is that OSGi simply cannot be made as easy to use and >> as productive as we feel is consistent with Spring values." >> >> "Niche" > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
