Comments on the module-file format
mr at sun.com
Fri Feb 5 12:18:27 PST 2010
> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:33:42 -0700
> From: Brian Pontarelli <brian at pontarelli.com>
> Completely understand and agree. I just want to bringing this up again
> because my knowledge thus far of Jigsaw is that it is based on three
> things that I feel will make it DOA:
> - SNAPSHOTs
I wouldn't say that Jigsaw is "based" on snapshots. We haven't yet made
a specific decision as to whether in-place updates should be allowed.
You've made some interesting arguments for forbidding them.
> - No (or poor) version compatibility
Not sure what you mean by this -- can you elaborate?
> - Automatic upgrading/downgrading
If by "automatic upgrade" you mean the ability to say "give me version
1.2.3 or later of module 'foo'", then I think it's essential for some use
cases. Developers of small client applications, e.g., often prefer to
test against all (or most) available versions of a library (or platform)
so as to increase the chances that their applications will run without
having to download whole new versions of that library (or platform).
> ... The metric should be to support
> enterprise applications with 20+ internal artifacts and 20+ external
> artifacts at a minimum.
That's certainly one metric, but there are others. Not every Java
application is written for enterprise settings.
More information about the jigsaw-dev