But that still leaves open the question as to whether the right solution
is to provide more tooling for OSGi or something simpler and possibly
better integrated with the language, e.g. Jigsaw.
On one of the point items I have to agree with the Posse -- if you get
to the point where you want different versions of the same library being
loaded at the same time, then that's generally a sign that your overall
dependency management has gotten out of control or that some modules are
not being adequately maintained. Sure, in some rare cases such a need
will occur, I've seen it -- but I'd be loathe to add complexity to >98%
of development for the <2% problem.
On 6/24/2011 9:44 AM, Neil Bartlett wrote:
Rod's message is a fair bit more nuanced than the headlines and
soundbites would suggest. He said that OSGi productivity is low
compared to "traditional" Java development, and it may surprise you to
hear that I agree with him on that point... currently.
However I don't consider that a reason for giving up on the goal of
building modular software. I and several others believe that OSGi can
actually be made *MORE* productive than non-OSGi development, and we
intend to prove it by building the tools that SpringSource failed to
build.
I do think that SpringSource could have solved this problem as well,
but they chose to focus on products like tcServer that were easier to
sell and provided faster profits. Actually this created opportunities
for smaller companies so ultimately I'm grateful to them.
Neil
On Jun 23, 9:22 pm, phil swenson<[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/2240037102/OSGi-Not-Easy-Enough-to-...
"We have changed our views on OSGi over the years, and one of the
reasons for that is that OSGi simply cannot be made as easy to use and
as productive as we feel is consistent with Spring values."
"Niche"
--
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.
