>My position is: let the best technology win. I don't see a lot of >discussion about which approach has the best technology. This is exactly the position of the OSGi folks as well, including me. It would be great if the debate were about technical issues, instead of process issues, timing issues and the like, which are red herrings as far as I can tell.
On the topic of standardization, what I have said on this thread already is that the question is whether Java is a standard or not. If not, it doesn't matter what Sun does with it (i.e. it's their product & they can do what they like). If it is, the interests of the community are important, and the time it takes to involve the community has to be taken. If the community is not involved in the beginning (as is the case with Jigsaw) it will have to be involved at the end (i.e. whether or not to adopt/invest - and this will be a serious question for community members who have already invested in OSGi). There is no shortcut here, unless there's no community. Eric On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
