Bill, I was very simply and only saying this because some people had identified themselves as such on this list. This seems like another case of the problem - to object to my using a label someone used for themselves is very strange.
If you look at this from a purely technical angle there is no good reason for the Jigsaw project to exist. You can disagree about that, and it's fine, but to get after me for using a term someone else has already used is very strange indeed. I cannot see how pointing out that competition and politics is involved is a negative or a criticism. This is a fact of life, that's all. When that happens some people are going to align themselves one way or another. That's it. Nothing negative implied. Eric On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Bill Robertson <[email protected]>wrote: > > Eric, I don't think it is fair to call somebody who accepts the Jigsaw > project's decision a "Jigsaw fan." I can't speak for anybody else, > but I don't see their decision as a partisan issue. The engineers > with the fingers on the keyboard seem like reasonable people, and they > say that this is the best decision for their circumstances (technical > and deadline), so I accept that. Its not an issue of rooting for not- > OSGI v.s. OSGI for me. I'm sure others feel this way as well. > > Thanks. > > On Jul 1, 6:52 pm, Eric Newcomer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bill, > > > > Thanks very much. In the end I realized I over reacted, and the right > thing > > was to take it down. I also appreciate where things are right now, i.e. > in a > > better conversation. > > > > One of the things Dick said about this (paraphrasing) was that it might > have > > been different if I had a better experience with the community. After > > following Java Posse discussions for a while now I agree that's the case. > > > > It can sometimes be difficult to identify business/political motivations > in > > technical discussions, and I think Dick also was right to say some folks > > posting to the list were just trying to score political points. I would > say > > this was what triggered my over-reaction. > > > > One thing I would like to say in terms of a comment on this topic is that > I > > think everyone recognizes the goals of Jigsaw as being valid, and I don't > > blame anyone for being a fan of Jigsaw. But many of its goals have > already > > been achieved in OSGi, and I would hope that the Jigsaw fans can > understand > > why those of us who had invested in OSGi before Jigsaw was started raise > the > > question of why OSGi was not used as the starting point. I know that the > > Jigsaw folks replied to these points, but I think it's also > understandable > > to question the replies, given the historical rivalry of Sun vs IBM over > the > > future of Java, and the use of OSGi in Eclipse. > > > > Eric > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Bill Robertson < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > You took some heat for posting this in the first place, so I think its > > > only fair that you be recognized for doing the right thing. > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > On Jun 30, 9:19 am, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I took this down. Apologies for the over- reaction. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > On Jun 26, 5:24 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >http://modualrit.blogspot.com/2009/06/jigsaw-posse.html > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
