That's a pretty good summary of it.

Personally, I would have preferred they only use it for the JVM. JPMS doesn't grok versioning and the jvm doesn't generally break backward compatibility, so it's ok there, I don't think there will be a lot of external adoption anyway.

Cheers,

Peter.

On 13/04/2018 7:12 AM, Mark Raynsford via osgi-dev wrote:
On 2018-04-12T20:32:13 +0200
Peter Kriens<peter.kri...@aqute.biz>  wrote:

Caught between a rock and a hard place with only one way forward …
I should make the point that I don't hate the JPMS. I do think that
it's just barely the minimum viable product, though.

The JVM really did need a module system, both for the maintenance of
the JDK itself and the future features that the system enables.

Oracle’s strategy is a mystery to me.
I think their strategy is fairly explicable, but I think they did make
some mistakes with some of the specifics (filename-based automodules!).
There's a pattern that Oracle tend to follow: They solicit opinions from
everyone vigorously, and then they implement the smallest possible
subset such that the fewest possible people are pissed off by it. If
there's a possibility of doing something wrong, nothing is done
instead. Being incomplete and "too strict" is considered preferable to
any kind of maintenance burden or making a mistake that people then
come to depend upon. Then, after a version of something is released,
the dust settles and the people that are still complaining after a year
or so of implementation are asked for comments again. The process
repeats! You can see this going on with quite a few of their projects.
A good example of this with the JPMS is that there was a vigorous
insistence that the module graph be a DAG. Now, some way into the first
year, it's going to be allowed to be cyclic but only at run-time. I
think the process does eventually produce results, but it takes a long
time to get there and demands a lot of patience from the people
involved. Most VM features seem to start off utterly spartan and then
grow to support the use-cases that people wish they'd supported right
from the start.

Java in particular has awful press, and a userbase that seems to become
incomprehensibly enraged over all good news and all bad news
indiscriminately, so that doesn't help the perception of the process
(or the results).

I think the key will be to continue complaining for as long as it takes
to get better interop between OSGi and the JPMS. :)



_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev

_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev

Reply via email to