with kind regards,
David Linsin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: [email protected] blog: http://dlinsin.blogspot.com On Dec 13, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Linsin wrote:
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, although there is no spec or JSR for that.I really want jigsaw to work out, but I hope they are not putting a half baked OSGi into Java 7.with kind regards, David Linsin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: [email protected] blog: http://dlinsin.blogspot.com On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:It's me. The guy that says: Give me closures, or give me death. Any sort of closures, really.And I'm okay with this announcement; there ARE language changes (for awhile there it looked like the language itself wouldn't change at all). There are quite a few of them. Including a fairly big one: Taking modularization seriously. We'll have to see if the result isOSGi, roughly as good as OSGi, or filled with boneheaded mistakes that a mere look at OSGi would have solved (that last one would be bad, but I doubt that's going to happen. The topic is taken a bit too seriouslyfor that to be likely IMO). Between JavaFX and modularization I totally get it. It's disappointing, sure. But 'java is dying'? Oh please. Drama queens. On Dec 11, 10:12 pm, "Van Riper" <[email protected]> wrote:On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote:sherod wrote:Wow. You've just summarized the last 12 months of popular topics onthe group in three lines :)Well one side of the topics at any rate.Overall conservative language evolution does not equal language death. Some of us have better things to do than chase every shiny new kitchen sink:-)I agree with Jesse, but, I do understand the disappointment of some folks here about the new feature dearth in the next release. On my own relatively small projects in comparison, it is my personal experience that a major refactoring of an existing code base for modular extension is best done separate from major feature additions. Why should it be any different for aproject as large as the JDK? Cheers, Van -- | Michael "Van" Riper |http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/ |http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper ---- | Silicon Valley Web JUG | mailto:[email protected] |https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net ---- | Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group | mailto:[email protected] |http://sv-gtug.org--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
