I think there is some confusion about the purpose and scope of Tom Watson’s
JPMS-OSGi interoperability experiment. He has talked about this publicly, but I
would like to make some comments from the point of view of the wider OSGi
community.
Tom works for IBM. They have many products built with
On 17 March 2017 at 16:39, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> It is clear to me that JPMS does contain an API with some flexibility
>> here, but it is hard to judge whether my second expectation is met.
>> This is because the discussion is ledf by OSGI and JBoss Modules
>> migration concerns, rather than by
On 20 March 2017 at 10:47, Andrew Dinn wrote:
> Regarding the first point, I have to ask why someone using an
> alternative module system to modularize their code would also want to
> use JPMS to modularize that same code.
The main feature that JPMS offers is the ability to encapsulate
package be
I'm not really sure this discussion is appropriate to this list rather
than the EG lists. However, I'm going to reply here anyway because i)
the subject has now been raised here and ii) I think this addresses the
adequacy of the current implementation as much as it concerns the
definition of the sp
On 17/03/2017 16:12, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I note that Proxy appears to have a special case for "dynamic
modules", and am concerned that this may over-emphasise Proxy compared
to other similar tools that are not part of the JDK.
Some of the recent mails that mention Proxy are misleading. I
On 03/17/2017 11:12 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I note the discussions on various threads about JPMS primitives.
My first expectation is that OSGI and JBoss modules can run in Java 9
in classpath mode.
I believe this to be true today.
Of course.
My second expectation is that there are suf
I note the discussions on various threads about JPMS primitives.
My first expectation is that OSGI and JBoss modules can run in Java 9
in classpath mode.
I believe this to be true today.
My second expectation is that there are sufficient primitive
operations within JPMS to allow a _new_ module
On 17.03.2017 10:26, Andrew Dinn wrote:
The major problem is that of quoting and responding
*here* to a fragment of a thread posted *there* (on the EG list). If you
want to take part in a dialogue then directing your comments to another
room, albeit an adjacent one, generally falls somewhere betw
On 16/03/17 21:42, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> sure, I will do that in the future if that is then the way to go.
> Because before (maybe a year ago) I was told to post to the dev list
> instead.
Perhaps so, although I think that is a misreading of what was said
(assuming it is the post I think you a
sure, I will do that in the future if that is then the way to go.
Because before (maybe a year ago) I was told to post to the dev list
instead.
On 16.03.2017 18:19, Andrew Dinn wrote:
Hi Jochen,
If you want to comment on a thread on the expert group list then you
really need to post that comm
Hi Jochen,
If you want to comment on a thread on the expert group list then you
really need to post that comment to the observers or comments list.
Posting it here without any context is just going to confuse people who
don't read the expert group list
n.b. I am replying to the jigsaw-dev list ra
On 16.03.2017 14:39, David M. Lloyd wrote:
[...]
It's clear that modules are not to be treated like classes, because (for
example) circularity among modules is considered "bad" whereas
circularity among classes has been shown to be indispensable, and
classes within a class loader or module are
12 matches
Mail list logo
