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 writt
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
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
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
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 experi
On Jul 2, 3:17 am, "pub...@lesstroud.com"
wrote:
> Chris,
> I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been said already,
> but this is really reminiscent of what happened to smalltalk. The same
> kind of religious wars without the wisdom of practical application or
> cohesive vision.
>
>
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 wrote:
> I took this down. Apologies for the over- reaction.
>
> Eric
>
> On Jun 26, 5:24 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com"
> w
Chris,
I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been said already,
but this is really reminiscent of what happened to smalltalk. The same
kind of religious wars without the wisdom of practical application or
cohesive vision.
Hopefully, we can move beyond it.
LES
On Jun 27, 4:14 pm, Chr
2009/7/1 Reinier Zwitserloot
>
> But, Steve, I just named a rather obvious use case where every module
> states their own dependencies, and yet interop is absolutely required:
>
> The java core libraries!
>
> Unless we decide to all talk in primitives and Strings to each other,
> it would all con
But, Steve, I just named a rather obvious use case where every module
states their own dependencies, and yet interop is absolutely required:
The java core libraries!
Unless we decide to all talk in primitives and Strings to each other,
it would all considered be a much nicer programming environm
Dick,
Thanks very much for this. I'm glad to see that the discussion is
continuing in a more professional tone and is focusing more on
technical issues. Apologies again for my over-reaction.
Eric
On Jun 27, 10:22 am, Dick Wall wrote:
> A bit of damage control here, and a personal announceme
I took this down. Apologies for the over- reaction.
Eric
On Jun 26, 5:24 pm, "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
On Jun 30, 5:58 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> 1) The serious issue with the same library at different versions in
> use by 2 separate modules is the lack of interoperability. Let's say,
> for arguments sake, that the collections API was versioned, and module
> A is using v1, while module B i
Some questions about using the same library more than once at
different versions, for both folks knowledgable at OSGi, and anybody
who knows how this is going to work in JavaFX:
1) The serious issue with the same library at different versions in
use by 2 separate modules is the lack of interopera
I believe SWT was a great kick in Sun's pants to get them to fix Swing, etc.
Now that it has done that I believe it has *no* reason to exist and is a
essentially the single reason I'd never choose to use the Eclipse RCP.
--
Jess Holle
Lhasadad wrote:
> If it wasn't for the pressure of something
If it wasn't for the pressure of something like SWT. The folks at sun
might
not have responded as quickly as they did to improve performance in
swing,
etc. a little competition is good for all of us. I don't think SWT
ever did damage
to the community. it provided a performant GUI library when
I think a little history is in order. My recollection is that in both
cases there was
a solution generated that addressed something that Sun either was not
addressing
(SWT -> performance, OSGI->Modularity, class path issues, etc). or
was not
prioritizing high enough for folks that were trying to
ework?
>
> Alexey
>
>
> From: Joshua Marinacci
> To: javaposse@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:23:01 PM
> Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: more jigsaw vs osgi vs javaposse
>
> modularity is part of that refactoring.
> we define modules for each major c
: Joshua Marinacci
To: javaposse@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:23:01 PM
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: more jigsaw vs osgi vs javaposse
modularity is part of that refactoring.
we define modules for each major component of the JRE. then we start moving
code around and cutting ties to fit
refactoring that would result in
> the same speedup in the current JVM? In theory, class loaders only
> load what's necessary already, no?
>
> Alexey
>
>
> From: Joshua Marinacci
> To: javaposse@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:09:30 PM
> S
om: Joshua Marinacci
To: javaposse@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:09:30 PM
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: more jigsaw vs osgi vs javaposse
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Alexey Zinger wrote:
I don't know if the jar duplication problem is that compelling overall. Even
sever
al modularization
> framework.
>
> Alexey
> 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
> 1992 Kawasaki EX500
> http://azinger.blogspot.com
> http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
> http://wcollage.sourceforge.net
>
>
> --
> *From:* mcculls
> *To:* The Java Posse
red apps and employ
> whatever modularization they deem necessary -- if JVM comes with it,
> they won't see a huge win over using an external modularization
> framework.
>
> Alexey
> 2001 Honda CBR600F4i (CCS)
> 1992 Kawasaki EX500
> http://azinger.blogspot.com
> h
(CCS)
1992 Kawasaki EX500
http://azinger.blogspot.com
http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
http://wcollage.sourceforge.net
____
From: mcculls
To: The Java Posse
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:21:16 AM
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: more jigsaw vs osgi vs javaposse
On Jun 29, 1
On Jun 29, 12:27 pm, Augusto wrote:
> No I mean that exactly.
>
> I don't know, I mean the point of modularizing something for me is I
> may want to use your module but I don't care about its internals. Or
> at most, I don't want the internals of your module to affect me.
[disclaimer: I contribu
Jesse,
Actually I agree with you, the support for multiple JAR versions in
OSGi is useful but not the most important feature. It's easy to forget
that OSGi itself has only supported this feature since Release 4, i.e.
since around 2004.
Interestingly, the lack of multiple version support in OSGi
No I mean that exactly.
I don't know, I mean the point of modularizing something for me is I
may want to use your module but I don't care about its internals. Or
at most, I don't want the internals of your module to affect me.
So yeah, you can expect your 3rd party libraries to "keep up" with th
Augusto wrote:
> On Jun 28, 6:38 pm, Steve wrote:
>
>> If an alternative modularity platform for app developers was more
>> compelling than OSGi I certainly would jump ship, but it would need to
>> at least provide what the OSGi core does now (proper component
>> encapsulation, supporting multi
On Jun 28, 6:38 pm, Steve wrote:
> If an alternative modularity platform for app developers was more
> compelling than OSGi I certainly would jump ship, but it would need to
> at least provide what the OSGi core does now (proper component
> encapsulation, supporting multiple versions of the same
On Jun 29, 12:27 am, Jess Holle wrote:
>
> Yes, OSGi is hugely important in some subspaces of Java right now, but...
>
> Jigsaw and OSGi aren't targeted at the same problem space.
>
>From the Jigsaw website:
"We expect the resulting module system to be useful to developers for
their own code, a
For a module system, I still prefer my childhood favourite: Lego(tm)
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> I know that Dick (and probably the rest of the posse) has had enough
> of the discussion (can't blame them) however I suspect that an
> interview with peopl
Steve wrote:
> I know that Dick (and probably the rest of the posse) has had enough
> of the discussion (can't blame them) however I suspect that an
> interview with people from some of the major projects who are using
> OSGi would provide more insight into why it is (or isn't) "important,
> viable
On Jun 28, 12:27 am, Chris Adamson wrote:
> OSGi advocacy-by-accusation... and still virtually no meaningful apps
> to prove that this stuff is important, viable, or even worth caring
> about.
>
Pretty much every major Java app server is built on OSGi now. I'd say
they were meaningful to Java p
It's not one or two, and it's not immediate. This kind of belligerent
zealotry was something I saw frequently over the last few years when I
was putting together the java.net front page every day. Thing was, as
the Editor, I couldn't publicly express how much I disliked this.
Take a look at Pete
A couple of things I forgot to mention;
@Neil
I think the interview raised a lot of the "controversial" points in a
respectful manner, but the points were raised (why not OSGi) multiple
times. It was very fair. Was it a 60 minutes type interview? No, but I
didn't think anybody would expect it to
Well this pisses me off to no end to be quite honest, I started that
other thread just to get some interesting conversation started on this
topic (which will affect you even if you don't care) and now it has
devolved into a flame war ... with the horrible outcome of completely
turning Dick off the
Chris, one or two OSGi zealots make some noise and you immediately
insinuate that 'the java community is self destructing'? Don't you
realize that's kinda insulting?
Whatever community you're part of now, if I had your attitude, I'd
fight to the DEATH to keep it niche and trivial, because the mo
A few things:
1. Dick, you guys rock. You do a fantastic job in the interviews, and I
enjoy them immensely. Looking at the other thread after the BoF and
questions, I would say that most appear to enjoy the interviews and the
style. You're very well respected in the community, and this is just
No, you guys are the perfect example of the problem. Just the same
way that SWT generated more zealots than applications, now we've got
OSGi advocacy-by-accusation... and still virtually no meaningful apps
to prove that this stuff is important, viable, or even worth caring
about.
Just because so
A bit of damage control here, and a personal announcement:
First - thanks Neil - I know you are trying to keep the peace, but I
do want to point out that I did not say that we were being begged for
interviews, please re-read the posting for clarification. Gone are the
days when we had to do the b
Perfect example of the problem.
There are no technical arguments for having two Java module systems,
so the strategy is to pick a fight and blame the other guys.
BTW my apologies about the too broad criticism. I was really trying to
point out the problem with the discussion threads, not the podc
The OSGi zealots remind me of the SWT zealots... and are poised to do
just as much damage to the Java community.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send emai
Dick,
As an OSGi supporter I also think Eric has gone a little far with this
blog post. It's clear to me at least that the JavaPosse was never
intended to be a "watch dog". You're just 4 guys podcasting about what
interests you, and your popularity and success speaks for itself. If
the "OSGi comm
Wow - what a report. I really couldn't let this one go by without some
comment.
Some choice pieces from the article:
"defend Jigsaw scathing, cynical, and even insulting comments about
OSGi folks"
>From everything (and I mean everything) I have observed so far, the
scathing comes primarily from
Whether the proposal supports groovy or not will indicate Dick's true
feelings on the matter!
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
>
> vs the javaposse? the java posse has their own modules proposal?
> awesome! will it support groovy?
>
> On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:24 PM, phil.swe
vs the javaposse? the java posse has their own modules proposal?
awesome! will it support groovy?
On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:24 PM, phil.swen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://modualrit.blogspot.com/2009/06/jigsaw-posse.html
> >
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
46 matches
Mail list logo
