I don't think anyone is against JPMS solely because they prefer OSGI, etc., but because it can require dramatic changes to the way these systems work (if it can even keep them working at all).
Java 9 will likely ship with Jigsaw in some fashion, at worst it will be limited to the core JRE/JDK libraries themselves.
Releasing the JDK9 without Jigsaw enabled is not a major problem.
When has there ever been a technical decision made on the technical merits?
It's always politics. Scratch that. It's only politics.
Pieter Hintjens' telling of how RedHat spiked the process around AMQP shows that RedHat is no different from any other player. http://hintjens.com/blog:125#toc15
I had a brief flirtation with a standardization effort. Standards bodies are just another battlefield for belligerents. And I have no problem with that.
I've already argued that simply reducing it to "it's politics" is not a reasonable argument unless you can also explain why the RH technical detail post is really just a bunch of politics and not technical arguments, and if you can explain why all of these organizations that don't own a module system _also_ voted against.
Not at all. I'm saying that politics is normal and good. I want RedHat, IBM, Oracle, etc to fight it out. Legally.
--
Before replying, I took a step back, wondering what my position is. Here it is:
This modules effort feels like generics. JDK 1.5 adopted the least objectionable, and therefore least useful, design for generics. The rationalization was "backward compatibility", then and now. The correct answer was to retool the JVM and JDK as needed to do generics properly.
IMHO, Java has leaned too far towards backward compatibility. But what do I know? Java continues to do quite well, despite my objections.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In that case, you're doing very well indeed. I wouldn't have quoted The Princess Bride (watch it!) if I'd known.
Not trying to be snarky, but you've never worked with Oracle, have you? Their modus operandi is to literally make whatever it is they want, then kick it out the door and tell everyone: look at what we did, deal with it. They have absolutely no idea how to collaborate. With partners or customers. They've had 20+ years of "our way or the highway". The house Larry built.
There are different groups with different cultures especially since many of them arrived through acquisitions. Including the Java team which came from Sun.
Did those Java folks also decide to start extorting customers?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_java...
If the answer is yes - then they're no better than the Oracle folks they work for. If the answer is no, then they clearly have no say in what REALLY happens when it comes to Oracle's decision making.
They made their implementation of Java a commercial product and have been supporting OpenJDK for those that don't want to purchase it. They are are well within their right to sue companies who are illegally using a commercial product without a license. Just like Microsoft et al regularly sues companies who are pirating their software.
And no the developers who are responsible for Java are not lawyers in their spare time.
If the fact they do it at this point is evidence of politics, can you explain why saying exactly the same thing much sooner would not have been? Jigsaw hasn't been in a state that most people can go try it for very long -- and most people are the folks who are impacted the most (for reasons the RH blog post explains).
Finally: it's not like Red Hat blocked this. A majority of stakeholders did, and most of them don't own module systems.
Presumably the people voting on it have.
> can you explain why saying exactly the same thing much sooner would not have been?
Because letting it get this far (weeks? from release) and then suddenly objecting loudly seems a little fishy versus bringing up technical objections years ago when there would be adequate time to address them?
Jigsaw has been a project for... a decade? now. That isn't a consequence of easy consensus.
It is the first time people who aren't voting, Java programmers, could realistically try Jigsaw.
It's been a while since I touched JBoss, but at one time they had gone wholesale for OSGI as their module system (replacing their old homegrown system built on JMX). Have they since replaced OSGI with something else?
Are IBM and RedHat just against Jigsaw because of commercial interests in JBoss Modules and OSGI? Do they actually care about the technical merits? How can Oracle get to this point in the process without more buy in from the community?
Also I never knew who was part of the EC. Interesting breakdown on who voted for or against.
Will Java 9 go out without Jigsaw? I imagine if they have already modularized the JDK then it's impossible to release Java 9 without Jigsaw.