I think one of the most compelling arguments cited was actually *not* getting necessary changes worked out through the OSGi standards body.
Standards body == slow. Given that there are clear things OSGi is missing that Jigsaw needs and the non-goal of Jigsaw replacing OSGi, bypassing it makes sense. There are other things that really gave me pause (e.g. the emphasis on native packaging to the exclusion of cross-platform portable packaging approaches!!!), but by-passing OSGi seems like a non-issue. -- Jess Holle P.S. I'd contrast this with by-passing log4j, for instance, where log4j could have easily been extended to do everything Sun had in mind and had no weighty standards body to contend with. Eric wrote: > This time issue is another false argument that attempts to justify > incorrect behavior - and I mean incorrect with regard to the Java > community. > > It takes a lot more time to start something from scratch than to work > with something that already exists. I don't just mean the development > of something, but its adoption as a standard. Unless, of course, > that's not what Jigsaw folks intend. > > Eric > > On Jun 20, 10:24 pm, Josh Suereth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can we stop the name-calling? On the scala list serves, I usually reserve >> pictures of fluffy,furry, cute and cuddly kittens to help quell heated >> pointless arguments. >> >> If you listen to the podcast again, you'll notice they specifically say that >> they didn't feel Sun could afford the time waiting for the OSGi-alliance to >> update themselves based on Sun's requirements. To this extent I do agree >> that Java really needs modularity. However it is also understandable how >> this would make the OSGi camp feel. Sun is basically saying, "Although you >> may have a good product, we can't affrod to wait around for your standards >> committee. We're going to do what we need and let OSGi follow along." This >> is far different from Sun's previous approaches (think EJB). >> >> The good news is that it sounds like the Jigsaw + OSGi folks are at least >> talking. I don't think a merged approach to modularity will take long to >> follow the release of JDK 7. That is of course, assuming Jigsaw succeeds. >> >> I think the biggest complaint coming from OSGi users (myself included) is >> that I don't want to have to deal with the complexity of 2 modularity >> tools. It's painful enough dealing with 2-3 different logging mechanisms >> accross 4-5 libraries. Competition is good, but integration is hard. >> >> I'm just waiting for the modularity communities to start making "abstract >> modules" that define services that can be implemented by venders. Anyone >> remember CORBA? >> >> - Josh >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
