> 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.

well said.  Standards and committees don't tend to lead to the best
solutions.  The best solutions tend to be reached by a small number of
very smart people (witness RoR) with no overhead (standards,
committees, bureaucracy).

After listening to the podcast, my guess is that the business decided
that in order to make JavaFX competitive Sun needed to make modularity
a priority (finally!).  And they didn't want to be constrained by
outside influences as the time-line wouldn't be predictable if others
were involved in the decision/design process.  And in the OSGi option,
the end result wouldn't be guaranteed to solve the problem (modularity
of the JVM).

I can understand why the OSGi advocates are pissed though.  These
people have a lot invested in the technology and now it's threatened.

My position is: let the best technology win.  I don't see a lot of
discussion about which approach has the best technology.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to