I think the jigsaw team spelled it out pretty well: 1. There are things OSGi can't do that we deem important. Specifically:
- Run different modules into the same classloader if you so choose. (OSGi being incapable of doing this annoys me to no end - low level operations can get really thrown off if you can't do this, and the jvm core is obviously filled to the brim with these) - Move modularization into the runtime (OSGi's modularization support is awkward and annoying at runtime, through no fault of their own, because java just doesn't support it in v1.6 and down!) - WITHOUT needing to wait for OSGi to get with the program. This is a bit more contentious, perhaps, but java moving fast for a change - I can't really bring myself to complain about it. - Keep things simpler by excluding e.g. lifecycle management. Simpler is another one of those things. I also believe the jigsaw guys made a decent case that OSGi can probably adapt quite easily to be able to work flawlessly with jigsaw modules (but not the other way around, as OSGi is a lot heavier in certain areas). I'm not _certain_ this is true, of course, and the sheer vitriol and whine spilling out of the OSGi camp makes me think they might just be juvenile enough to obstinately refuse to write support for jigsaw modules into OSGi (seriously, OSGi people, grow up!). Nevertheless I hold high hopes that this will happen, and that it won't require that much work for the OSGi camp. Therefore, the 'this will split the java world in twain' argument is FUD. On Jun 18, 2:12 am, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, Augusto Sellhorn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I'm kind of surprised there's not a lot more discussion around Jigsaw > > since it includes such fundamental changes, and there's till the whole > > controversy around Sun not leveraging OSGi. > > My ill-informed take on this is: > - modularity inside Java itself is obviously a good thing > - if OSGi was not an appropriate choice for that, then Sun coming up > with their own module system is fine for the task of modularising the > jvm > - bringing the concept of modules to the language itself is also a > good thing > > The issue is when Jigsaw is positioned as something *application* > developers might want to leverage, I can't see how that cannot result > in fragmentation (for example, finding 3rd party libraries with OSGi > metadata is already difficult, asking developers to support OSGi *and* > Jigsaw is not going to endear them to the cause of java modularity). > > The podcast interview was good (they always are:) however the guys > should have nailed them more on why we need another module system > targeted at application developers (as opposed to intra-vm stuff). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
