Updates on Interoperability
gordon.hirsch at SAS.COM
Mon Apr 28 11:14:48 PDT 2008
Sam Pullara wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> I might wholeheartedly accept your view if the powers to be decided
>> to pare down 277 to be just a repository model for Java JAR files,
>> because that could potentially be fairly easy for us to specify and
>> get working as an OSGi module repository (which is currently
>> lacking). I have said before that it makes sense to have 294 give us
>> needed VM support for modules, 277 give us repository support for
>> modules, and 291 give us run-time support for modules.
> This seems like a good plan. We'd have no problem wrapping this up
> quickly with this as the goal.
+1, for the record, at least. I too would be happy with the 277/291/294
breakdown described above (but which I have been assuming is a lost cause).
If, instead, there is a separate 277 runtime, then that's when strong
interoperability (as defined in Bryan's blog entry) becomes critical,
simply because of the wide usage of at least one other module system
runtime already today.
More information about the jsr277-eg-observer