But they do communicate with the OSGi team.
On Jun 22, 7:43 pm, Eric Newcomer <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, the point is that Jigsaw proposes to be a standard. OSGi already is
> one, and I don't mean in the academic sense. I mean that it has been widely
> adopted and used. My point is that the Jigsaw folks are talking about their
> effort as if it were already the equal of OSGi, when it is far from it.
>
> I wish I knew what you guys were all talking about with respect to the OSGi
> supporters vs Jigsaw supporters. To me this sounds like the principal
> arriving in the middle of a fight at the schoolyard, and not knowing who
> started it, can only blame each fighter equally.
>
> If we in the OSGi community invite the Jigsaw folks to participate (and Sun
> is definitely a member of OSGi as well as the relevant expert groups), and
> they say they will, but then they don't, and we complain about that, is that
> a valid compliant or not?
>
> Eric
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Lloyd Meinholz
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
