mobile code interface to remote
services. It really feels like Oracle and the Java team have no interest in
what the desktop environment represents…
Gregg Wonderly
> On Oct 7, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Glavo wrote:
>
>>
>> *Bandwidth optimization and rare machines.* This is i
more portable and dependable software systems.
Gregg Wonderly
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 7:07 PM, Samuel Audet wrote:
>
> Android actually includes OpenJDK these days, still only OpenJDK 8 at the
> moment, but it is a project downstream to OpenJDK, so in my opinion Google
> should
Yes, I, like many others have carried around various JNI code in jar files
(javax.comm and my own as well), and then copied these out of the jar, into
“temp” space, and then used load() to load and bind them in class wrappers.
This works quite well, but it is highly customized in how it’s imple
I think that Stephen is largely announcing that JigSaw presents more problems
than it solves for the community. My list of issues, which I have shared
before, goes basically like this.
1. Modules should have versions which new tooling on community toolsets could
use for managing details like m
This is pretty much what was lamented about on the list as the project
proceeded. In the end, the restrictions you see are because all the system
classes in the Java VM implementation need to be protected in this way to
provide the opportunity for evolution of the implementations underlying the
users to use the application. Installers are just not something that we need
to start the path to have to support cross platform…
Gregg
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 05/03/2018 13:58, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> Will java -jar note that the argument is a
Will java -jar note that the argument is a module and help the user understand
how to invoke it, or will it just complain about a missing main-class:
attribute? From a practical perspective, why does it matter and demand a
different command line? What happens when you double click on a module?
I’d like to reverse this dependency to be that in the end, I want every module
in the app I construct to funnel through and use a single Logging
implementation so that I can linearize the logging streams into a single stream
of details that help me to understand the health and progress of my
ap
> On May 17, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>
> On 16/05/17 19:11, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>
>
>
>> If we really cannot actually keep from breaking 90% of existing Java
>> in the market place when this new JDK release goes out, how valuable
>> is
At some level, this is the problem that is paramount on the release of JDK-9.
Earlier Mark asked if the Eclipse foundation had to approve or be ready to
support all of what JDK-9/Jigsaw supports before it could be released.
The statement below seems to stipulate that “all Java software must be
Or, would it make sense to make the module name require quotes around it? The
subtlety of this notation looking JSON like, and yet being something new, makes
me wonder if it should not just be a JSON based structure
module : [
{
m : {
> On May 10, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>
> On 5/9/2017 5:20 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Log4j already has a robust plugin approach for users to implement
>> their own Appenders, Filters, Layouts, and other Log4j components. We
>> are not going to modify that as it would severely impact
If there is not already such an exception, it would seem like a good idea to
have an exception that formats such a message from constructor parameters
providing the details so that it’s the same everywhere, and so that it can be
changed in once place if needed.
Gregg
> On May 3, 2017, at 9:48
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:44 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 08:31 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 25/04/2017 14:16, Michael Nascimento wrote:
>>
>>> :
>>> and also the fact
>>> packages must be defined by a single module even if they are not
>>> exported,
>>> because it was considered nea
The interesting thing about this issue, is that it points out that even inside
of Oracle, reflection against users objects for “features” of the software
system, is useful practice. At some level, this denial of service is really
just a “control the user” front to an attempt to solidify the wal
I really believe that we can't really flip off working applications with a JDK
upgrade. It's developer and deployed cooperation no matter which way the
switch are by default. Starting with unknowing developers, deployed and users
having to suffer through discovery of what will it take to make
>
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:07 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2017 20:53, Reto Merz wrote:
>
To be honest, we don't see a lot of security manager
usage on the server side these days.
>>
>> I'm really surprised about that. How can a app server or servlet container
>> like JBoss Tom
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2017 16:26, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> :
>> At the forefront of the failure of the SecurityManager to be an avidly used
>> element of Java applications, is the simple fact that the whole
>> infra
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>
> On 04/04/17 15:58, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> Alan said:
>>
>>> The issue here is nothing to do with the security manager, assume
>>> no security manager in the picture.
>>
>> But, I always
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 4:36 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>
> On 03/04/17 21:56, John Rose wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Gregg Wonderly
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alan, it is exactly this kind of comment from the team which just
>>> tears apart the w
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Alasdair Nottingham
> wrote:
> One of the problems Java has today is that it is very easy to end up
> depending on internals
> because the JVM has no modularity. It is one thing to end up using a Java API
> that is
> visible, but not intended to be used by an app
focus on
“java users” as opposed to java developers is just amazing from my perspective…
Gregg
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2017 17:28, Reto Merz wrote:
>
>> It was already suggested in another thread by Gregg Wonderly:
>> Why no
Again, I want to stress that from my position we are completely ignoring
desktop Java users who will update Java to JDK 9 and never know that they’ve
broken something by doing that.
Java is not a server only enterprise deployed environment…
Gregg
> On Apr 2, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Stephen Felts wr
break applications that they are using, and how will those users
resolve the problem themselves?
Gregg
> On Mar 30, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 30/03/2017 20:47, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>
>> Mark, what is the plan for people with .jar files on their desktop w
There has been some discussion on this list which I have never been satisfied
with around why the SecurityManager was not used for a large number of the
things that are being done with literal JVM changes. Mark Reinhold and others,
I believe, don’t know how to use the SecurityManager, or believ
Mark, what is the plan for people with .jar files on their desktop who just
double click on them to run desktop applications? How will they know that
their upgrade to Java 9 broke the application and how to remedy the problem by
either getting a java-9 compatible version of the app (which will
Parts of this feel like a health care act...
Gregg
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 3/24/2017 19:28, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ceki, we came up with an approach that works for us (though it's a
>> bit cumbersome). See: http://word-bits.f
Better yet, why aren’t the java.util.logging apis used for stuff like this? It
seems strange that there is not a nice compact formatter, yet, standard in the
JDK. The logging APIs seem highly neglected given that even the varargs access
has not been fixed so that you can use varargs without an
I think this is an important detail to consider as well. If -d’s argument will
now have an implied subdirectory before the class hierarchy, simple Java
applications/deployment tools will break, unless the JVM knows exactly what to
do about this. However, think about the case where I am buildin
I find this text much more demonstrative of the needs of the many. Thanks for
continuing to work through things with the community and understand needs that
we all have for a good path forward which allows everyone to use JDK9 and for
the future to hold a much better view of encapsulation witho
I still, like others seem to, find it amazingly odd, that the security manager,
existing basis for access control is not still what would count. I understand
that the JDK itself is not deployed with a security manager impl in most cases,
and thus there would be no access context for the securit
what
“Version” points to.
Gregg
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>
> Why I was referring to is how will modules find classes from other modules?
> How will the different version of the same package namespace that Gili was
> talking about be hidden? In o
defineModulesWithOneLoader. (The
> launcher actually uses the slightly lower level defineModules() method I
> think, but really what I'm suggesting is to update the function to assign new
> class loaders for named modules instead of reusing the same one.)
>
> On 09/01/2016 08:23
The important detail for me, is that ClassLoader per module, with the current
Class resolution scheme (this ClassLoader and whatever I can find in the
parent), provides a lot of issues. The “custom ClassLoaders” or “containers
like OSGi” remarks point at the “us and them” attitude that is pretty
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:18 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2016 10:33, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I was quit busy lately and this comes a bit late, I guess you do not have
>> less work ;-)
>>
>> On 15.07.2016 17:10, Paul Sandoz wrote:
When I u
But the question really comes down to, "will 80% of developers be interested in
this level of restriction, or is this functionality which only 20% of all
software needs?
The defaults fails to support open, shared access to facilitate reuse. Instead
it supposes that we are all creating secured,
Would it not be better to provide an option for people who need to do this
level of validation so that there might be an option such as
—validate-module-presence=B
instead to make it possible to get the validation, but not have to do this for
common, simple developer builds, but it could be inc
I agree, this is not very module like if we are building dependencies to export
targets. This is another reason, for me, that this feels wrong. I am just not
sure I understand why we care so deeply for “authorization” to use code when
there are so many (nearly countless) ways to exploit the bu
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2016-07-15 20:24, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> At least someone replied to my question.
>>>
>>> On 7
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 14/07/16 11:28, Alan Bateman wrote:
Yes, indeed, and that is potentially a significant problem. My
comment stands: there is a serious possibility that his will make it
impossible to use (non-exported) Jigsaw modules for so
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>
> At least someone replied to my question.
>
> On 7/14/16 5:44 AM, Russell Gold wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> What infuriates me is that in all this discussion, I don't see anyone
>>> talking about a t
why is it that everyone will
have to deal with it, if those developers are not 90% of all developers
benefiting?
Gregg Wonderly
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>
> For those who are still supporters of preventing non-exported types from
> being reflecte
The runtime environment needs to have a way that developers can impose version
consistencies that make sense. In some cases it is just data consistencies
which can be managed literally with data construction.
But when code versions are mixed in with data versions, the runtime context
needs to
Will there be a recursive Jar: content mechanism so that there can be a single
file object representing an entire application and all of its dependencies?
Gregg Wonderly
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2015 17:18, Stephane Ep
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:18 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On 02/06/2015 11:17 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> I'd personally prefer that a dependency graph with branches such as
>>
>> A->C
>> A->B.v1
>> C->B.v2
>>
maven, gradle, ant and other build systems
have an easier time at collecting components, and then help developers manage
such components in a way that normalizes dependencies, references and isolation
strategies into concrete details that can be continuously refined and enhanced.
If you don’t include the community at large, which means gradle, maven and ant
owners/users and you don’t manage to actually get buy-in, then we will have
another Jenkins episode and there will be further separation in the community,
all for no good.
Gregg Wonderly
>
> -Tim
>
do this, and thus you can
create marshalled object instances to pass around to other places and just
unmarshall them in the other versions class loader.
Gregg Wonderly
it should interact.
Gregg Wonderly
On 2/5/2015 7:00 AM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2015/2/5 12:40 +, david.ll...@redhat.com:
I agree that working dependency resolution is a necessity for a working
software system. But, it is my opinion that run time is far too late
for this to occur (an
lassLoader, complete
with designation of parent class loaders. It's been a large pain for a lot of
people.
Gregg Wonderly
tigation and work
could happen toward fixing all the plethora of problems that have manifested
from there only being a single, closed system for UI "improvement".
Gregg Wonderly
On 11/16/2014 7:47 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
On 11/15/2014 11:18 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/11/2014 16:34
n the Jini environment, we do this with
a dependency analysis tool so that the downloaded .jar file, at the client,
doesn't contain anything more than what is actually needed by the client.
What does Modular JDK, at the root of its definition here, really mean to you
Mark?
Gregg Wonderly
quot;Java" is used, really are places where
VM is the underlying memory mechanism. So, it seems like the right time to
just go ahead and use it to it's full abilities.
Gregg Wonderly
in such a way that the dependency graph
is always visible.
That's what is actually needed. Dependencies should be a primary thing as part
of the development process, and development time dependencies should not become
the deployment time dependencies.
Gregg Wonderly
On Sep 6, 2013, at 10:22
re is no benefit that Sun/Oracle receive from disallowing this in licensing.
Instead, they've managed to make sure that Java is not desirable for anything
other than large scale application deployment.
Gregg Wonderly
On 9/4/2013 9:44 PM, Neil Bartlett wrote:
And yet, JEP 161 addresses the most
ibility of "roll your own classloader", and focus on
providing a meta data approach that allows tools to help organize your needs
into the use of the things which are the POWER of Java.
Gregg Wonderly
On 8/29/2013 10:55 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2013/8/28 15:50 -0700, Tim B
56 matches
Mail list logo
