[jsr294-modularity-eg] Simple Module System Proposal

[Alex Buckley]

BJ Hargrave wrote:
>  > For the users I have in mind, multiple loaders and dynamism are edge
>  > cases, configurable through module-system-specific annotations.
> 
> The set of users you have in mind is not interested in modularity. Just 
> named and versions jar files which express dependencies on other named 
> and versioned jar files. Having named and versioned jars files is fine 
> and has proven useful to a large audience of maven users. But doing that 
> does not require Java language changes and module-info source files. 
> Putting a name and a version on a jar file does not make it a module.

If I may summarize: Applications are, in your view, either so simple as 
to need only basic Maven-like functionality, or so complex as to need 
dynamic visibility over multiple versions with strong encapsulation.

This echoes Peter's view that "Nobody needs modularity for a Hello World 
program, and letting this use case drive the design seems plain wrong" 
and "small applications do not have to bother with modularity". [1]

If Maven suffices for versioning and dependency tracking - not "real" 
modularity but still of some value, in your view - why does the Simple 
Module System claim the same ground by standardizing versions and 
dependencies in the language?

Alex

[1]http://www.osgi.org/blog/2009/06/classpath-hell-just-froze-over.html
_______________________________________________
jsr294-modularity-eg mailing list
jsr294-modularity-eg at cs.oswego.edu
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/jsr294-modularity-eg