[jsr294-modularity-eg] Simple Module System Proposal
Alex.Buckley at Sun.COM
Thu Sep 24 14:16:02 EDT 2009
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". 
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?
jsr294-modularity-eg mailing list
jsr294-modularity-eg at cs.oswego.edu
More information about the jsr294-modularity-observer