The -general- idea that right now having a modular JDK is more important than having a module system with direct language support in place is partly sensical to me. However, a few language level changes such as a module keyword, for the benefit of OSGi or for some JSR (I don't care), would have been nice.
On Dec 13, 6:21 pm, David Linsin <[email protected]> wrote: > I should add that I find it contradicting because of his slide in the > Devoxx > keynote:http://picasaweb.google.com/dlinsin/Devoxx2008#5279235779801040690 > > 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 a > >> while 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 is > >> OSGi, 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 > >> seriously > >> for 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 > >>>> on > >>>> the 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 a > >>> project 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 > >> > > > > smime.p7s > 3KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
