[jsr294-modularity-eg] Simple Module System Proposal

Peter Kriens peter.kriens at aqute.biz
Tue Sep 29 13:49:30 EDT 2009


I think we're having a bit of a dead lock. Is there an anyway we can  
have a call to discuss these issues? I also like to know where Bob and  
Sam think.

Kind regards,

	Peter Kriens

On 29 sep 2009, at 18:55, Alex Buckley wrote:

> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 9/24/09 20:16, Alex Buckley wrote:
>>> 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?
>> To me, this line of discussion completely misses the important  
>> point. If 294 modules are required to be loaded by a single class  
>> loader, then they are useless in any environments that are either  
>> dynamic or support side-by-side versions, which throws their reuse  
>> out the window. Thus, there is very little benefit of the SMS  
>> proposal over the "big hook" approach.
>
> "big hook" approach?
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> jsr294-modularity-eg mailing list
> jsr294-modularity-eg at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/jsr294-modularity-eg

_______________________________________________
jsr294-modularity-eg mailing list
jsr294-modularity-eg at cs.oswego.edu
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/jsr294-modularity-eg


More information about the jsr294-modularity-observer mailing list