Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #36629

Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/14/2017 8:44 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> And I also think that Oracle has done a lot of things to facilitate
> migration:
> * the module system has been underway for many many years so people
>   have had long time to check their stuff
> * early access version of Java 9 with module system has been out for
>   quite some time allowing people to test
> * they added a special solution for the much discussed
>   problem sun.misc.Unsafe by exporting it from the
>   module jdk.unsupported
> * they added a command line option to the JVM
>   --add-opens/--add-exports to workaround problems

Note though that JSR 376 (module system) public review
was rejected by JCP EC.

13 NO votes (IBM, Redhat, Eclipse etc.)
10 YES votes (Oracle, Azul etc.)

But it may not be dead yet as the comments from some of the
NO voters sort of points towards a resolution.

Software AG:

<quote>
Assuming the ‘No’
vote carries, we hope the specification lead would take advantage of the 
30 days
afforded under the JCP process to attempt to form a healthier consensus 
within
the EG.
</quote>

Credit Suisse:

<quote>
With JSR 376, two main
concerns exists (i.e., automatic modules, reflection) that potentially 
conflict
with an easy adoption of this JSR. Our understanding is that solutions 
have been
proposed in the EG and it seems to be beneficial to give the EG some 
more time
to get consensus on these important topics.
</quote>

SAP:

<quote>
Assuming this JSR won't be approved with
the required two-thirds majority, we would expect the expert group and 
spec lead
to use the additional 30 days for regular meetings in order to sort out the
remaining issues and come up with a new, more sustainable and forward 
looking
proposal. While we're aware that it won't be possible to remedy all 
concerns, we
think that the last days have clearly demonstrated that good compromises are
still possible (e.g. the "automatic modules issue") and we're confident 
that the
additional time could be used to submit a better specification for the
reconsideration vote.
</quote>

London Java Community:

<quote>
The LJC is voting "No" on the spec *as it was submitted* at the start of the
voting period. During the 14 day voting period, great progress was made 
by the
Spec Lead and the EG to reach consensus on some very difficult issues 
such as
#AutomaticModuleNames. However, there are still on going conversations 
on some
of those issues and there simply has not been enough time spent by the 
ecosystem
to discuss some of the new designs in enough depth or enough time spent
implementing and testing prototypes based on the latest spec, e.g. The 
Eclipse
ejc compiler or the latest Automatic Module Naming design in Maven.

If required, we very much look forward to being able to vote ‘YES’ in <= 
30 days
on a version that has had that little bit of extra time for the EG (and the
ecosystem) to discuss / implement / test some of these difficult spec items.
Certainly the last 14 days have shown that consensus can be reached even 
when
viewpoints have started in opposing corners, and we think another short time
period to really bed in the last sticking points is needed.
</quote>

Ivar Grimstad:

<quote>
I am voting
"No" on the specification as it was submitted at the start of the voting 
period.
The discussion during the 14 day voting period has been very good, and I 
applaud
the progress being made by the Spec Lead and EG in this period. 
Especially the
latest Automatic Module Naming proposal.

With continued discussion and these changes incorporated in spec, I look 
forward
to vote "Yes" in a potential reconsideration ballot.
</quote>

It seems like a lot of EC members are hoping/expecting to get
an agreement in place within the next month.

But some (especially the OSGi crowd) are not likely to change
their mind.

Obviously nothing is sure until the final vote.

If this JSR falls then Java 9 will be hanging in the air.

Arne

PS: To read all comments see https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5959

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Chris Riesbeck <Chris.Riesbeck@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:25 -0500
  Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 13:43 -0400
    Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 11:14 -0700
      Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 14:33 -0400
        Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 11:53 -0700
          Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 15:10 -0400
            Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:53 -0700
              Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 16:06 -0400
          Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-05-01 16:00 -0400
            Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 16:14 -0400
  Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 15:59 -0400
  Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2017-05-01 22:01 +0200
    Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 16:09 -0400
      Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2017-05-01 23:17 +0200
        Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-01 18:35 -0400
          Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2017-05-02 21:42 +0200
            Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-02 16:18 -0400
              Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2017-05-02 22:45 +0200
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-02 17:43 -0400
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-02 22:57 -0400
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-05-10 12:42 -0700
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 13:12 -0700
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2017-05-10 23:25 +0200
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-14 20:44 -0400
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-15 19:27 -0400
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> - 2017-05-16 22:39 +0200
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-16 20:48 -0400
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-07-21 19:45 -0400
              Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2017-05-02 23:09 +0000
                Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-02 22:45 -0400
  Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-05-02 02:53 -0700
    Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-02 16:24 -0400
      Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-05-02 14:27 -0700
        Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-05-02 17:47 -0400

csiph-web