Ah. That's great news, because managing everything by packages seemed rather convoluted to me.
On Dec 14, 10:23 am, "Frederic Simon" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but to be clear: > Alex Buckley first task (almost completed :) is to implement the module > keyword and features that goes with it (downloaded modules/packages) in the > Java language. It's not trivial since module will be another modifier like > private, protected, and package and so need good Scope management code in > the compiler and JVM. > Then from this language feature the project Jigsaw will start to cut the JDK > into pieces. > > So, "module old.crappy.java" will exists :) > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > --http://www.jfrog.org/http://freddy33.blogspot.com/http://nothingisinfinite.blogspot.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
