This thread is hilarious, who thought modularity could be such a
controversial topic. :D
Throwing modules at each other can hurt!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Augusto augusto.sellh...@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is hilarious, who thought modularity could be such a
controversial topic.
On Jun 27, 2:57 am, Frederic Simon frederic.si...@gmail.com wrote:
Throwing modules at each other can hurt!
Indeed it can.
BTW, I'm still a bit unclear on Jigsaw supporting different versions
of the same module/library running at the same time in an application.
If anybody else knows a bit
My comments should not affect the natural flow of discussion here, we
do not control what goes on this forum (we only block spam, everything
else goes through). Please, please please continue, hopefully we can
all do so with professionalism though ;-).
Cheers
Dick
On Jun 27, 1:14 pm, Augusto
On Jun 25, 2:39 am, phil swenson phil.swen...@gmail.com wrote:
My position is: let the best technology win. I don't see a lot of
discussion about which approach has the best technology.
Well best depends on what criteria you are using to evaluate the
choices. If best means more features or
This thread is hilarious, who thought modularity could be such a
controversial topic.
Somebody mentioned this, it seems the driver here is JavaFX. Making
the VM smaller, and starting faster and that is why this is needed by
Java 7. With that in mind, it seems reasonable that the Sun folks want
Cross posted from the forked thread about the OSGi vs. Jigsaw vs. The
Java Posse as I believe it effects both discussions.
http://modualrit.blogspot.com/2009/06/jigsaw-posse.html
Wow - what a report. I really couldn't let this one go by without
some
comment.
Some choice pieces from the article:
What ever the color was, it was Marvelous
(I reckon no-one knows what we're talking about.)
On Jun 25, 2:27 pm, Michael Neale michael.ne...@gmail.com wrote:
The beige, the off-white, bone etc...
On Jun 25, 11:49 am, Christian Catchpole christ...@catchpole.net
wrote:
so... what colour
On Jun 25, 11:37 am, Steven Herod steven.he...@gmail.com wrote:
What ever the color was, it was Marvelous
I disagree and I blame you, too!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups The
Java Posse group.
To
On Jun 24, 8:20 am, Vince O'Sullivan vjosulli...@gmail.com wrote:
After reading this rather depressing thread, I can't help but think
Java is dead..
Time to get out the Scala book.
http://www.raverun.com/writings/tech/scalaosgi/
There's no escape :)
Come back VB6. All is forgiven!
On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Steve stephen.a.lind...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no escape :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups The
Java Posse group.
To post to this group, send
My position is: let the best technology win. I don't see a lot of
discussion about which approach has the best technology.
This is exactly the position of the OSGi folks as well, including me. It
would be great if the debate were about technical issues, instead of process
issues, timing issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed
On Jun 24, 7:09 pm, Steve stephen.a.lind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:20 am, Vince O'Sullivan vjosulli...@gmail.com wrote:
After reading this rather depressing thread, I can't help but think
Java is dead..
Time to get out the Scala
so... what colour did they choose?
On Jun 25, 11:28 am, Michael Neale michael.ne...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed
On Jun 24, 7:09 pm, Steve stephen.a.lind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:20 am, Vince O'Sullivan vjosulli...@gmail.com wrote:
After
I like turtles.
On Jun 22, 3:33 pm, Eric Newcomer enewco...@gmail.com wrote:
And now this conversation is starting to go in circles... There is no
shortcut to becoming a standard, which is what Jigsaw is aiming for. Unless
you think it doesn't matter whether any other Java vendors support
Thought you guys might be interested in this:
http://www.osgi.org/blog/2009/06/hi-were-osgi-we-mean-no-harm.html
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.comwrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, Eric:
1) jigsaw's reasoning that OSGi would have been too slow
After reading this rather depressing thread, I can't help but think
Java is dead..
Time to get out the Scala book.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups The
Java Posse group.
To post to this group, send
I have to say I these strong statements about OSGi are very
uninformed. Nor does the cleverness of the language improve their
credibility.
None of the reasons cited are a good reason to invent a new module
system, i.e. Jigsaw. It would be better for the industry to kill it,
and the sooner the
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
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
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
Again, those are nice theoretical statements.
The problem is that absolutely no one is working on the convergence of OSGi
and Jigsaw, despite many assertions that that would be the case.
It's also incorrect to blame the OSGi folks for this, since OSGi has an open
process and Jigsaw does not.
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
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.
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
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
All of that formal involvement takes a hell of a lot of time.
As I see it they only had 2 options:
1. The path they took
2. Grab an open-source OSGi implementation whose implementation and
license were amenable and bundle and fork it as needed
Working with standards bodies in this
And now this conversation is starting to go in circles... There is no
shortcut to becoming a standard, which is what Jigsaw is aiming for. Unless
you think it doesn't matter whether any other Java vendors support it?
This is also complete supposition on your part. Although I admit it sounds
So, if I understand you correctly, Eric:
1) jigsaw's reasoning that OSGi would have been too slow is specious
and downright faulty - from which I can conclude you presume to say
that OSGi's design-by-committee aspects aren't a horrid mess of
bureaucracy and insistence on officiousness, and
2)
Hello Reinier,
Some responses inline below. I consider myself in the so-called OSGi
camp, though I am not an OSGi Alliance member nor do I speak for the
Alliance or any of its members.
On Jun 20, 12:35 am, Reinier Zwitserloot reini...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the jigsaw team spelled it out
Responses inline.
On Jun 20, 11:33 am, Neil Bartlett njbartl...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen these requirements stated directly by the Jigsaw team
(if indeed there is a team, I thought it was just Mark Reinhold).
Listen to the podcast. The 'team' is Buckley and Reinhold, and the
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
Interview and link in OP were very helpful.
I have a few simple Jigsaw questions:
How much (if any) of Project Jigsaw is usable in the current JDK 7
milestone?
What's a general ballpark time frame for when this stuff will be ready
to play with?
Maven is gaining lots of traction and wide usage
On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, Augusto Sellhorn augusto.sellh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm kind of surprised there's not a lot more discussion around Jigsaw
since it includes such fundamental changes, and there's till the whole
controversy around Sun not leveraging OSGi.
My ill-informed take on this is:
-
On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, Augusto Sellhorn augusto.sellh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm kind of surprised there's not a lot more discussion around Jigsaw
since it includes such fundamental changes, and there's till the whole
controversy around Sun not leveraging OSGi.
My ill-informed take on this is:
-
I think the jigsaw team spelled it out pretty well:
1. There are things OSGi can't do that we deem important.
Specifically:
- Run different modules into the same classloader if you so choose.
(OSGi being incapable of doing this annoys me to no end - low level
operations can get really thrown
Whoops, I meant to say I saw Dick Wall at the QA and not Carl. If
often get the Java Posse members confused, you know, because of those
big hats and all :-)
On Jun 11, 11:17 pm, Augusto Sellhorn augusto.sellh...@gmail.com
wrote:
In case anybody is interested, I wrote a summary of the
36 matches
Mail list logo
