On Dec 4, 4:01 am, sherod wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE4B28D920081203
>
> (A bit of balance after all that 'Sun cuts 18%, death of Java
> imminent' news :)
Granted, this is bad for Adobe. But they're still making a good
profit (though boosted by some tax transact
This friewall idea is making us Aussies look almost as dumb as
kiwis. :)
On Dec 13, 10:51 am, "Peter Becker" wrote:
> [was: Loose Coupling vs. Information Hiding and Ease of Change]
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Vince O'Sullivan
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:50 am, Casper Bang wrote:
The -general- idea that right now having a modular JDK is more
important than having a module system with direct language support in
place is partly sensical to me. However, a few language level changes
such as a module keyword, for the benefit of OSGi or for some JSR (I
don't care), would have be
I should add that I find it contradicting because of his slide in the
Devoxx keynote: http://picasaweb.google.com/dlinsin/Devoxx2008#5279235779801040690
with kind regards,
David Linsin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
email: dlin...@gmail.com
blog: http://dlinsin.blogspot.com
I really wonder how they are "working closely" with the OSGi alliance.
Mark Reinhold's statements on this were a bit contradicting, saying
that they are working with them, but it's not jigsaw's job to be
compliant or even compatible. OSGi is responsible to be compatible
with jigsaw, althoug
Rob,
No, you don't want to change any generated code (ever). The approach
I have taken is to write a wrapper class for the web services I call.
This class contains a method which returns a "Port". The address for
the web service is constructed dynamically. As I think I said
previously, this is
