Updates on Interoperability

Gordon Hirsch gordon.hirsch at SAS.COM
Fri Apr 25 12:33:55 PDT 2008

Bryan Atsatt wrote:
>  I've been thinking a bit about
> this issue, and tried to summarize that here:
> http://atsatt.blogspot.com/2008/04/jsr-277-interoperation.html
> Do folks generally agree with this characterization? Does anyone think
> I've grossly misstated the situation, or left out anything important?

Hi Bryan,

Great summary. I generally agree with your characterization of 
interoperability. This degree of interoperability, at least with OSGi, 
is necessary to make JSR 277 a success.

It's true, as you mention, that much of the "interoperability story is 
already present in the spec". However, I think there's good reason to 
wonder how achievable that story actually is. That's why it has been 
disappointing to wait so long for something concrete. It's encouraging 
to read that we'll see something soon.

You mention that resolution requires each implementation to:

> 1. Map its dependency declarations into a standard runtime representation.
> 2. Support a standard search model over its stored modules, using the runtime dependency expressions.
> 3. Map its stored module data into a standard runtime representation that can be returned by the search.

One challenge lies in defining the "standard runtime representations" 
and "standard search model" in a universal enough way to encompass OSGi 
and other module systems. This implies embracing concepts (in these 
standard representations and search model) that were not universally 
liked by the EG early on. (Split packages and package-level 
import/export come to mind.)

More information about the jsr277-eg-observer mailing list