Being a standard doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Corba, EJB 1 and 2 are standards. Spring and Hibernate even eclipse are defacto standards, but not official standards. Emphasizing OSGI being a standard doesn't help you argument IMO. I also don't agree that retrofitting OSGI to meet the needs of Jigsaw is quicker. It may be, but not necessarily.
As a total outsider to the modularization stuff, I have to say that my experience is that the OSGI supporters that I see appear to be much more irrational than the Jigsaw supporters. That turns me off and I think hurts adoption of this technology. The same kind of community behaviour is one reason I really don't care for RoR. Yes, I could just grow up and ignore the jerks, but why not work with a group that doesn't include them? There are plenty of interesting things to work on. Lloyd On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Eric Newcomer <[email protected]> wrote: > But this is a completely nonsensical argument. Standardization is slow > because developing a standard means that you need to get people to buy into > it and adopt it. That takes time. There are no shortcuts. The same will > have to be true for Jigsaw. If it really gets adopted it will take a long > time. > > Are you suggesting it doesn't matter whether Eclipse, IBM, Oracle, > Progress, etc. adopt it? If it does matter it will take time. > > There is no magic in the world that anyone can use to anoint anything a > standard. This is a really false argument on its face. You cannot just > wish for something to be adopted and have it happen. > > That's why I say we are dealing with a false debate here. We are drawn into > a comparison of Jigsaw *as it might become* versus OSGi *as it already is*. > OSGi is a standard - Jigsaw is not. We can suppose that Jigsaw might become > a standard, but can we really say the time it will take for Jigsaw to be as > widely adopted as OSGi would be time well spent? > > Eric > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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]> >> <[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
