3 ms·
> This is unambiguously a good thing. I don't believe it's "unambiguously" a good thing. Many disagree with circular module dependencies (I am one) at least at
by kodablah 10y ago
> This is unambiguously a good thing.
I don't believe it's "unambiguously" a good thing. Many disagree with circular module dependencies (I am one) at least at this initial stage. Statements like "breaking the world" are a loaded way of saying "doesn't fit existing module use cases of all members". I think the current implementation was ripe for release and vendors would have worked with it well. I am also dismayed that a compete implementation can be completed before nixed (regardless of the internal reasons we got this far before turning back).
- lvh 10y agoBreaking circular dependencies are one of the least impactful things Jigsaw did compared to classloader and resource loading changes; breaking the world is a comment about all of Jigsaw, not an individual change. I agree that "breaking the world" is not an appropriate description of a JDK9 that breaks circular dependencies; but that's not all what Jigsaw does.
- melling 10y agoAfter 10 years, why couldn't it be made unambiguous to everyone involved? https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294 https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294 http://javaposse.com/java_posse_259_jigsaw_and_jsr_294_interview http://javaposse.com/java_posse_259_jigsaw_and_jsr_294_inter...
- pjmlp 10y agoPolitics, as it isn't a clone of OSGi.