Re: Strawman: Services and service-providers support

[Stanley M. Ho]

My original email did not seem to go through ... resend.

- Stanley

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Strawman: Services and service-providers support
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:07:05 -0700
From: Stanley M. Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
To: Java Community Process JSR #277 Expert List [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi JSR 277 experts,

Since I have not heard any further input on the services and
service-providers strawman, I suppose the EG is fine with the strawman
overall except the issue raised by Richard. Unless I hear any objection,
I will incorporate the appropriate portion of the strawman based on the
feedback you have provided into the next revision of the specification.

Thanks,
- Stanley

P.S. I am still working on getting the strawman out to the observers
through the infrastructure on openjdk.org, and it will take some time.

Re: Module isolation

[Stanley M. Ho]

Resend.

Bryan Atsatt wrote:

...
Stanley's idea was that a Repository implementation could return a
*copy* of a ModuleDefinition created by a different Repository. Such a
Repository would in fact form an isolation context. And caching Module
instances becomes trivial: each definition can just have one as a field.

While there are definite lifecycle issues here between such repository
instances, they are probably solvable.

And then we really *do* have an exact analogue of the loader delegation
model, in which:

   Repository   ~= ClassLoader
   ModuleDefinition ~= Class
   Module   ~= Object

Isolation of classes requires different Class instances. So isolation of
 modules requires different ModuleDefinition instances.


Yes, that's the basic idea for isolation. In addition, the ModuleSystem
object is the one actually handling the module instances' instantiation,
initialization, and release, so the repository implementors do not have
to be aware of most of the module runtime's complexities.

- Stanley

Re: JSR 277 EG observer mailing list

[Stanley M. Ho]

This is a resend.

Glyn Normington wrote:


Hi Stanley

Any chance of updating the public part of the JSR 277 page?


The content of the public page is for the original JSR proposal, and is
administrated and maintained by the JCP PMO office. I have contacted the
office and the answer is no. Anyway, I think mentioning the observer
list in the openjdk page + blogs + google should be sufficient for most
people.

- Stanley