Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Jigsaw: RedHat and IBM say no Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 20:48:44 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <59079419$0$24666$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl> <5907a5ef$0$24695$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl> <5908e12b$0$20463$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl> <5908efdf$0$20484$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl> <21ebb136-a9b3-45d0-a8d2-36f4cc89b991@googlegroups.com> <59138555$0$24634$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: PBuS014lhzVyHjLbXmo/ZQ.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:36639 On 5/16/2017 4:39 PM, Sebastian wrote: > Am 16.05.2017 um 01:27 schrieb Arne Vajhøj: >> 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. >> > [comments snipped] > > The comments by the nay-sayers broadly address the following topics: > • module isolation and dynamic modules > • cyclic dependencies > • reflection > • automatic modules > • consensus in the EG > > The time period for a revised spec is just too short to do anything > about the first point. Oracle will not (and should not, in my opinion) > change its stance with respect to the second and third point. Regarding > automatic modules, in addition to what has been mentioned there is now > also the possibility to specify in the module name in the Manifest. Time is short. Unless they decide to postpone Java 9 a few months. > Consensus there will be not, because no one is going to convince Red Hat > (and probably also not IBM). It will be very hard to sell this to the OSGi guys. > So the remaining nay-sayers will have to consider whether their > objections justify basically killing off Java 9. My guess is most will > find that upholding the No vote would be too detrimental to the Java > ecosystem as a whole, and that consequently the JSR will get bthe > required two-thirds majority at the final vote without seeing much change. I think Oracle can do a lot by recognize the disagreements and use more carrot than stick. Based on the comments it sounds like they are doing just that. Arne