Thought you guys might be interested in this: http://www.osgi.org/blog/2009/06/hi-were-osgi-we-mean-no-harm.html
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com>wrote: > > So, if I understand you correctly, Eric: > > 1) jigsaw's reasoning that OSGi would have been too slow is specious > and downright faulty - from which I can conclude you presume to say > that OSGi's design-by-committee aspects aren't a horrid mess of > bureaucracy and insistence on officiousness, and > > 2) Sun's open chats with the osgi alliance, as talked about by Peter > Krienz here: http://www.osgi.org/blog/2008/12/project-jigsaw.html aren > too informal. > > > Of course there is a shortcut in making a standard. You make something > good, and hope the people will flock to it. It helps if you are > building the framework/tool/library/whatever because you have a > specific itch that needs scratching, and any use by others is bonus. > Huh, that sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? As a rule, designs by > committee are used begrudgingly by that committee, foisted on others > by way of expensive consulting contracts, and despised like the plague > by everyone else, for sucking so much. Not always, and OSGi's been far > less of a disaster than must committee designed hoopla, but you're > touting this 'design by committee' horn as if it's a _good_ thing. Uh, > no. > > Let me put it differently: I can take pretty much your entire > argument, grep for 'OSGi', replace it with 'EJB 2.0', and the crux of > your argument would be equally 'valid'. I think we're all happy EJB > 2.0 was taken out back and shot. Now, OSGi isn't nearly that bad, but > nevertheless, it shows that your arguments are just not very > convincing. > > On Jun 22, 11:38 pm, Eric Newcomer <enewco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, that's what they keep saying. I'm sure they mean that they speak > when > > they see each other in the hallways at Java One, or after a presentation. > Or > > something like that. > > > > But there is no participation in any OSGi expert group by Jigsaw folks. > And > > there is no Jigsaw JSR for anyone else to participate in. > > > > The Jigsaw folks can say anything they want to anyone informally - and > they > > do say a lot of things - but there is no formal exchange of ideas and > > proposals. That is the point. Without that, there's no way to bring > things > > together. > > > > Eric > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > But they do communicate with the OSGi team. > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:43 pm, Eric Newcomer <enewco...@gmail.com> 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 > > > > <meinh...@javabilities.com>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 < > enewco...@gmail.com > > > >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 <je...@ptc.com> > 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 <joshua.suer...@gmail.com> < > > > joshua.suer...@gmail.com> 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 javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
