Meaningless Drivel is fun!*
The moose likes Other Application Frameworks and the fly likes Jigsaw Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of OCM Java EE 6 Enterprise Architect Exam Guide this week in the OCMJEA forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Frameworks » Other Application Frameworks
Bookmark "Jigsaw" Watch "Jigsaw" New topic
Author

Jigsaw

Augusto Sellhorn
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 24, 2007
Posts: 57
A bit off topic but a bit related too, is Oracle going forward with Sun's plan of implementing Jigaw in Java 7 (or Java 8?)? I wrote a blog post about the discussion on this at JavaOne 2009;

http://sellmic.com/blog/2009/06/11/classpath-hell-just-froze-over/

I remember Richard, I think you were there.

Anyways, is OSGi and Jigsaw still seen as overlapping technologies? I remember the OSGi folks not being too happy about Jigsaw, although it seems that Jigsaw is trying to solve a much smaller subset of problems than OSGi is. Also at the time I remember there being some discussion about Jigsaw/OSGi integration/interoperability.
Richard S. Hall
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 14, 2011
Posts: 47
Augusto Sellhorn wrote:A bit off topic but a bit related too, is Oracle going forward with Sun's plan of implementing Jigaw in Java 7 (or Java 8?)? I wrote a blog post about the discussion on this at JavaOne 2009;

http://sellmic.com/blog/2009/06/11/classpath-hell-just-froze-over/

I remember Richard, I think you were there.

Anyways, is OSGi and Jigsaw still seen as overlapping technologies? I remember the OSGi folks not being too happy about Jigsaw, although it seems that Jigsaw is trying to solve a much smaller subset of problems than OSGi is. Also at the time I remember there being some discussion about Jigsaw/OSGi integration/interoperability.


At the last JavaOne, I believe the announced plan was to move forward with some sort of built-in Java Module System that would have some sort of OSGi interoperability. I don't really know much more than that. If this indeed happens, the two will definitely overlap, but I assume your characterization would be correct in that the built-in module system would not target all of what OSGi targets.
Augusto Sellhorn
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 24, 2007
Posts: 57
Yeah, Jigsaw just seems to be aimed at modularizing the core JDK, creating versioning and defining dependencies. It doesn't really have anything like OSGi services, the registry or a dynamic container.

One thing it does have that I think is better, is how you define your dependencies. I really don't like the MANIFEST.MF way of doing things in OSGi for importing and exporting packages. One little space here and there in the wrong place and bam, the whole thing is broken.

At the very minimum having an XML file for this would be an improvement. OSGi really needs to move away from the JAR manifest file.
Richard S. Hall
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 14, 2011
Posts: 47
Augusto Sellhorn wrote:One thing it does have that I think is better, is how you define your dependencies. I really don't like the MANIFEST.MF way of doing things in OSGi for importing and exporting packages. One little space here and there in the wrong place and bam, the whole thing is broken.

At the very minimum having an XML file for this would be an improvement. OSGi really needs to move away from the JAR manifest file.


I completely disagree that XML would be an improvement. XML is not intended for humans. At least the manifest syntax is reasonably simple. But of course, it would just be better if we had good tooling support to always generate this stuff so we didn't have to edit it by hand at all.
Hussein Baghdadi
clojure forum advocate
Bartender

Joined: Nov 08, 2003
Posts: 3479

Augusto Sellhorn wrote:
At the very minimum having an XML file for this would be an improvement. OSGi really needs to move away from the JAR manifest file.

Please no XML, we the Java folks are so addicted to this smoke.
Not to mention that parsing XML files could add some performance penalties to OSGi applications.
Augusto Sellhorn
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 24, 2007
Posts: 57
Ok, ok, XML was a bad example :-) I'm not a fan either, although you all know Declarative Services, Blueprint and Spring DM all use XML right? :-)

What I meant is the MANIFEST.MF file is kind of like Makefiles, it's sentitive to space indentation in some cases. For example, if you new line a long package you have to add a space (" ") to continue the line. I just tried it again to double check.

Although I admit it has gotten better, I could swear at one point if you didn't have an extra line or some other nonsense at the end of the MANIFEST file it wouldn't parse it correctly (just tried that and it didn't cause problems).

BTW Jigsaw doesn't use XML, their format looks like compilable source.
Richard S. Hall
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 14, 2011
Posts: 47
Augusto Sellhorn wrote:Ok, ok, XML was a bad example :-) I'm not a fan either, although you all know Declarative Services, Blueprint and Spring DM all use XML right? :-)


That's why I promote iPOJO, it supports annotations, XML, and API...

Augusto Sellhorn wrote:What I meant is the MANIFEST.MF file is kind of like Makefiles, it's sentitive to space indentation in some cases. For example, if you new line a long package you have to add a space (" ") to continue the line. I just tried it again to double check.

Although I admit it has gotten better, I could swear at one point if you didn't have an extra line or some other nonsense at the end of the MANIFEST file it wouldn't parse it correctly (just tried that and it didn't cause problems).

BTW Jigsaw doesn't use XML, their format looks like compilable source.


Yeah, manifest syntax is odd, but for the most part you don't really need to generate the actual file by hand with either Eclipse or tools like bnd or maven-bundle-plugin.
 
 
subject: Jigsaw