<story><title>JDK 9 modules voted down by EC</title><url>https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5959</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lvh</author><text>This is unambiguously a good thing. Jigsaw didn&amp;#x27;t solve the toughest problems it had hoped to solve, and there are much less impactful ways to accomplish some of these goals. As it stood, Jigsaw broke tons of applications that did non-trivial things with class loaders, reflection or even circular deps. As a consequence, while Jigsaw (after significant effort) might not be disastrous for Java, it&amp;#x27;s pretty awful for most things that aren&amp;#x27;t Java that target the JVM, like Clojure. Meanwhile, significant incremental engineering benefits in JDK9 were being held back by this sweeping change; so now maybe we can just get a better JVM without breaking the world.&lt;p&gt;As it stood, Jigsaw required a ton of engineering effort internally and externally and severely broke the backwards compatibility that has made Java such a workhorse of the enterprise. All of that at very questionable benefit to the end user: still no module-level versioning of deps. That doesn&amp;#x27;t mean this effort is totally wasted: the oldest parts of the stdlib were due for a touch-up.&lt;p&gt;Lord knows that I have my differences with how Red Hat operates sometimes, but I don&amp;#x27;t think suggesting their vote against Jigsaw is somehow a political plot to benefit OSGi or  JBoss modules is reasonable. (FWIW: I also don&amp;#x27;t think OSGi&amp;#x27;s and JBoss&amp;#x27; alternatives are great, but  that&amp;#x27;s OK, because they&amp;#x27;re opt-in.) That theory has little explanatory power: why are all of these other companies voting against?&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I have no stake in any of the voting parties, but I do write a lot of JVM-targeting software.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lmm</author><text>&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t think suggesting their vote against Jigsaw is somehow a political plot to benefit OSGi or JBoss modules is reasonable. (FWIW: I also don&amp;#x27;t think OSGi&amp;#x27;s and JBoss&amp;#x27; alternatives are great, but that&amp;#x27;s OK, because they&amp;#x27;re opt-in.) That theory has little explanatory power: why are all of these other companies voting against?&lt;p&gt;I think RedHat&amp;#x2F;IBM are opposing it because it isn&amp;#x27;t OSGi&amp;#x2F;JBoss (and whether that&amp;#x27;s for nefarious reasons or because they genuinely believe OSGi&amp;#x2F;JBoss are the Right Thing is beside the point), and most of the other opposition is following their lead.&lt;p&gt;I think OSGi&amp;#x2F;JBoss are failures in the market because they&amp;#x27;re hideously overengineered, and if Jigsaw is to succeed it should avoid solving most of the problems that OSGi&amp;#x2F;JBoss claim to. Rather it should solve the common case while being much simpler. The current proposal seemed like a pretty good effort to me.</text></comment>
<story><title>JDK 9 modules voted down by EC</title><url>https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5959</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lvh</author><text>This is unambiguously a good thing. Jigsaw didn&amp;#x27;t solve the toughest problems it had hoped to solve, and there are much less impactful ways to accomplish some of these goals. As it stood, Jigsaw broke tons of applications that did non-trivial things with class loaders, reflection or even circular deps. As a consequence, while Jigsaw (after significant effort) might not be disastrous for Java, it&amp;#x27;s pretty awful for most things that aren&amp;#x27;t Java that target the JVM, like Clojure. Meanwhile, significant incremental engineering benefits in JDK9 were being held back by this sweeping change; so now maybe we can just get a better JVM without breaking the world.&lt;p&gt;As it stood, Jigsaw required a ton of engineering effort internally and externally and severely broke the backwards compatibility that has made Java such a workhorse of the enterprise. All of that at very questionable benefit to the end user: still no module-level versioning of deps. That doesn&amp;#x27;t mean this effort is totally wasted: the oldest parts of the stdlib were due for a touch-up.&lt;p&gt;Lord knows that I have my differences with how Red Hat operates sometimes, but I don&amp;#x27;t think suggesting their vote against Jigsaw is somehow a political plot to benefit OSGi or  JBoss modules is reasonable. (FWIW: I also don&amp;#x27;t think OSGi&amp;#x27;s and JBoss&amp;#x27; alternatives are great, but  that&amp;#x27;s OK, because they&amp;#x27;re opt-in.) That theory has little explanatory power: why are all of these other companies voting against?&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I have no stake in any of the voting parties, but I do write a lot of JVM-targeting software.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>slantedview</author><text>&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t think suggesting their vote against Jigsaw is somehow a political plot to benefit OSGi&lt;p&gt;RedHat and others clearly do want Jigsaw to be a meta-module system though, which to any sane person who has no financial interest in existing module technologies is ridiculous, and would be exactly the kind of mind-numbing complexity that people hate on Java for. Eclipse&amp;#x27;s No vote even came with this comment:&lt;p&gt;“The Eclipse Foundations looks forward to a revised specification which will enable independent implementations”</text></comment>