Jesse, Actually I agree with you, the support for multiple JAR versions in OSGi is useful but not the most important feature. It's easy to forget that OSGi itself has only supported this feature since Release 4, i.e. since around 2004.
Interestingly, the lack of multiple version support in OSGi Release 3 and earlier was highlighted by the original specification request for JSR 277. It was argued by Sun in 2005 that OSGi was not an acceptable solution for modularity because it did not support multiple versions of libraries, even though it already did by that time, and they are now seeking to design a new module system that also does not support multiple versions. Regards Neil On Jun 29, 4:21 am, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > Augusto wrote: > > On Jun 28, 6:38 pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> If an alternative modularity platform for app developers was more > >> compelling than OSGi I certainly would jump ship, but it would need to > >> at least provide what the OSGi core does now (proper component > >> encapsulation, supporting multiple versions of the same 3rd party jar, > >> runtime dynamism, etc.). > > > Multiple versions of the same jar is one thing I described in my blog > > post incorrectly. Well, I said that was a core problem solved by a > > module system but in fact Jigsaw doesn't seem to support it. It is not > > needed for modularizing the JDK, but it is essential for modularizing > > applications. > > It is essential for /some/ applications. > > Personally I generally prefer to make all the parties involved work > /really/ hard at allowing for and arriving at a single version of any > given library (ideally the latest stable version) to be used at runtime > rather than allowing multiple versions within an application. Using > multiple library versions in one application is pretty much a worst case > scenario to me -- and is generally a strong indication that someone is > not keeping their software up-to-date (i.e. so that it can use the > latest stable versions of the libraries it depends on). If that someone > is a vendor or 3rd-party component then that's generally a sign to go > shopping for another one -- unless, of course, you're the one who has > been foolish enough to stay on an old version of that component instead > of moving to the new version, in which case it is time to upgrade. > > -- > Jess Holle > > P.S. If you mean multiple versions just for things like a web app > reload, that's a different matter entirely, of course. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
