9 ms·

The link also has the feedback given by the EC; check out the comments from Red Hat. That covers a lot of it. To summarize: Jigsaw started out as just a thing

The link also has the feedback given by the EC; check out the comments from Red Hat. That covers a lot of it. To summarize: Jigsaw started out as just a thing to modularize the JDK itself. It then tried to expand into being a general module system for java apps too. At which point, a whole bunch of concerns were raised about catering to needs that the JDK itself didn't have, but other things might. At that point, the scope was reduced back down to just modularizing the JDK. And somewhere along the line the scope crept back _up_ to being a general module system, backed by a pretty big baseball bat: jigsaw breaks reflection and requires tons (as in, half a screen full if you're unlucky) of command line switches to make most libraries work. So, there are now 2 concerns posited with the implementing team (with Mark Reinhold as the lead of that team): What can you do to fill needs that jigsaw does not fill and which we think the java community needs, even if _YOU_ (for the job of modularizing the JDK) do not, and, can you address the issues raised about how jigsaw makes it harder than it needs to be for existing java code to migrate, given that we've been here before (JDK4->JDK5 was a big update), and back then lots of projects effectively forced their users to stick to old versions of java for _years_, and those days weren't fun. A few downvoters have voted this down because they think these are showstopping concerns and the EC hasn't given suitable answers. However, most downvoters do not necessarily agree that these are showstoppers, but they have voted this JSR down because they feel the EC owes answers. Given that Mark Reinhold has already shot down another attempt by Red Hat to suggest a way to address their concerns, right now it looks like this entire JSR is going to get killed in 30 days. At that point, one of the following will happen: * JDK9 will get delayed _A LOT_ because a new JSR will be started to continue work on jigsaw. Presumably the same issues will plague it so they'll have to be addressed after all. * Oracle invokes the nuclear option and gets rid of the EC, or does something virtually as drastic by for example releasing 'oracle java 9' whilst not actually releasing a java 9 spec or the OpenJDK, or trying to eject Red Hat etc from the EC. Any attempt to do that will probably result in the EC voting down everything based on that alone, so, basically all these options lead to: No more EC. * Jigsaw's scope is reduced to only being a way to modularize the JDK, probably still breaking lots of existing code (because of breaking reflection), but no EC vote is needed because oracle sells it as an 'implementation detail'. * Jigsaw is removed entirely, and the efforts are refocussed for JDK10, under a new JSR number. * Even crazier things.

LeanderK 9y ago
ok, thanks. I've read the comments, but the perspective from somebody "neutral" is always enlightening. I don't know whether Jigsaw creates a lot of work for one of Red-hats core-products or whatever, thus i took Red-hats comments with a grain of salt.
timv 9y ago
> right now it looks like this entire JSR is going to get killed in 30 days. I don't think so. I suspect Eclipse/IBM/RedHat will still vote against it, but the others will accept that voting "yes" is better than the alternatives (as you have described) and let it through. There are a small number of members who think that Jigsaw if fundamentally bad. For them, it's solving the problem the wrong way, ignoring their beloved existing module systems, and is a waste of effort that ought to be killed. They will alway vote no, and will look for relevant technical reasons to justify that. And there's always something wrong with a spec if you want to find it. I don't specifically mean "this is political" so much as "they are predisposed to be against Jigsaw, and will always find flaws in it because they simply don't believe in it". Most of the other members who voted no, seem to think that Jigsaw can be salvaged, but don't want to simply wave it through when there's still so much angst, and there's hope that, with time, some of that angst can be reduced and the spec will be improved along the way. Once they get to the critical point where it's vote yes, or kill it entirely, that decision changes. At that point, voting no creates more angst and more problems, and won't improve the spec. I expect that they'll vote "yes" then, and accept that they got the best outcome that they could possibly achieve. Perhaps there will be one or two who will still vote no because they don't think enough progress was made and they will take a principled position over a pragmatic one (which is not necessarily a virtue in a standard committee), but I think it will get through, simply because the alternative is so much worse.

LeanderK 9y ago

ok, thanks. I've read the comments, but the perspective from somebody "neutral" is always enlightening. I don't know whether Jigsaw creates a lot of work for one of Red-hats core-products or whatever, thus i took Red-hats comments with a grain of salt.

timv 9y ago

> right now it looks like this entire JSR is going to get killed in 30 days. I don't think so. I suspect Eclipse/IBM/RedHat will still vote against it, but the others will accept that voting "yes" is better than the alternatives (as you have described) and let it through. There are a small number of members who think that Jigsaw if fundamentally bad. For them, it's solving the problem the wrong way, ignoring their beloved existing module systems, and is a waste of effort that ought to be killed. They will alway vote no, and will look for relevant technical reasons to justify that. And there's always something wrong with a spec if you want to find it. I don't specifically mean "this is political" so much as "they are predisposed to be against Jigsaw, and will always find flaws in it because they simply don't believe in it". Most of the other members who voted no, seem to think that Jigsaw can be salvaged, but don't want to simply wave it through when there's still so much angst, and there's hope that, with time, some of that angst can be reduced and the spec will be improved along the way. Once they get to the critical point where it's vote yes, or kill it entirely, that decision changes. At that point, voting no creates more angst and more problems, and won't improve the spec. I expect that they'll vote "yes" then, and accept that they got the best outcome that they could possibly achieve. Perhaps there will be one or two who will still vote no because they don't think enough progress was made and they will take a principled position over a pragmatic one (which is not necessarily a virtue in a standard committee), but I think it will get through, simply because the alternative is so much worse.