On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/19/2012 4:28 AM, Phil Haigh wrote: > > Having a large JRE isn't an issue for my server development work... > > > Agreed. > > Jigsaw is lots of things: > > 1. A simple module system that is really well integrated into the Java > language, compiler, and runtime > 2. A modularization of the JVM itself > 3. Removal of classpath configuration > 4. Integrations with platform-specific deployment tooling > > None of these are really *critical* for Java's current bread-and-butter, > which is server-side development work, of course. > > #1 would be very nice, though -- and I'd love to see just that delivered > in Java 8, jettisoning the rest as fluff/frosting to be added in Java 9. > It's unclear, however, how one could be sure the module system is adequate > and won't need major rework in Java 9 without also tackling #2 in Java 8, > so perhaps one would also need to tackle #2 in part for Java 8 in this case. > > #2, #3 and #4 seem like really, really low priority for server-side work. > They are more important in terms of allowing Java to spread beyond (or at > least not contract to) its bread and butter. They are key for allowing > Java SE to be right-sized for lots of other environments. They would also > apparently be key to any notion of replacing the antiquated Java ME with > something better -- unless Oracle is simply going to concede mobile > (including tablets) entirely to Android forever. [Personally I'd think > Google and Oracle should actually be working *together* to grow dovetail > Android and a right-sized/mobilized Java SE in the long term.] It's a sad > statement for Oracle that they can't get their act together here before > 2015 at the earliest. As a server-side developer, though, I have to say I > don't really care *that* much. Just give me #1. > > As for #4, some of the deployment demos we saw at previous JavaOne's > seemed truly irrelevant. Cool, but irrelevant. If time wasted in this > area has held Jigsaw out of Java 8 that would be a real shame. > > Overall, if you *need* modularity today, there's obviously OSGi. If you > don't *need* it, but it would be nice to have, then you're left torn > between biting off the complexity of OSGi (it's certainly more complex than > something integrated into the language, compiler, and JVM runtime) and > putting modularity off until Oracle gets around to it someday in the hazy > future (2017 after yet another delay?!?). > > -- > Jess Holle > > P.S. I'm talking about modularity that impacts the *runtime*, of course. > One can get *build-time* modularity in loads of ways, Maven being the > prime example. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "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. >
So, we're all Java enterprise application developers in here ? (I am btw) What do our Java desktop application developer colleagues in here thing about this ? Because Jigsaw's delay probably impact them most. Or not ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
