[jsr294-modularity-eg] Simple Module System Delema

[Neil Bartlett]

Stephen,

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Stephen J. McConnell
<mcconnell at dpml.net> wrote:
> Also, while I notice frequent references to SMS, I am very much aware of
> a complete absence of any reference to any formal documentation outside
> of the Jigsaw project page links (keeping in mind that the 294
> referenced content is so old it's somewhat academic). I guess if you
> deny an association with Jigsaw, I can understand your inability to
> respond to concrete questions with concrete references.

I can't help but get the impression that you have misunderstood the
purpose of this mailing list and the nature of the discussions here;
you appear to be putting the cart before the horses. The experts on
this list (who graciously allow us to review and comment on their work
as it is in progress) are working to define what JSR 294 shall be. By
necessity they cannot reference the completed specification because
that is the end goal of their work here!

> At least the Jigsaw project is pumping out details of language changes,
> VM implications, code, APIs and a sample implementation.  One could
> suggest that that the Jigsaw Project is a more credible reference point.
> In reality (and I think you, Peter, and Richard would agree), Jigsaw is
> delivering.  In the meantime one could argue that people are wasting
> bandwidth with discussions that are not grounded on specifications.

Presumably you feel that all JSRs should begin with a complete
specification and work backwards from that point, and that any
discussions prior to the production of that specification are a waste
of bandwidth?

> I don't think I'm ready to drop Jigsaw spec. from the equation - in
> fact, I would suggest that you and the other members of the expert group
> should deliver a baseline specification ASAP. You could publish it, and
> then address issues relative to that baseline. At then end of the day, I
> think it is important to ground our discussions on qualified proposal
> and tangible acronyms.  I sure you agree.

Jigsaw is not a reference for JSR 294, it is a potential future
implementation of JSR 294. It may be further advanced than the
discussion here but that is irrelevant. OSGi is also a potential
future implementation, and it is even further advanced, being in
production already in millions of devices and products, yet I do not
see you insisting on any reference to the OSGi specification as a
baseline.

It is proper for the requirements of Jigsaw to influence these
discussions, and Alex is doing a fine job in communicating those
requirements to the group. It is also proper for the requirements of
OSGi to influence discussions, and BJ, Peter and Richard are doing a
fine job in that regard also. It is NOT proper to short-circuit the
entire JSR process and arbitrarily choose one incomplete
implementation as the baseline of a future specification.

Kind regards,
Neil

>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> p.s. Still waiting for an answer on the single classloader question and
> that other question about implementation specifics data in the
> module-info data related to the Jigsaw implementation.
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> --
> Stephen J. McConnell
> mailto:mcconnell at dpml.net
> http://www.dpml.net
> mobile: +61 4 5800 3980
>
>