Hi Michael,You might want to see a doctor about that...
Thanks for your feedback, and indeed for all of your active contributions toThat is why I am here :) And honestly I'm addicted to Java EE ;)
Apparently I didn't do a very good job explaining the intention. We were not trying to make a significant change or add a significant feature. Just look for ways to solve specific problems that people were having and that modularity *would have solved* if we had it.The point was to see if we could get a decent bang from an inexpensive buck.A good approach. Very pragmatical. But I'm still not in favor for it.
Bottom line for me
is, that it will not change anything significantly.
I said that in jest about the earlier efforts which really were about modularity, but again, at this stage we were not trying to add anything that looks like modularity or that even pretends to fill that gap. Rather, we were seeing if people wanted to solve an existing problem in a conventional non-modular way. Perhaps we should not be spending a minute more talking about it, though, if there is no interest in doing it :-)Providing me with references reminding me of my previous failed attempts toWasn't meant to be like this. Sorry. I'm a strong supporter of "having
get some kind of modularity into EE were unnecessarily just turning the
knife, however ;-)
modularity" in the platform.
But I don't want to see a minute spend on things that "only look like"
and don't truly change anything.
As I said, I believe it would be a good idea to start with kind of aFeel free, it's an open site :-)
"draft requirement document" to collect all the ideas and wishes that
We could also put it on java.net and develop this further until we
finally reach the point when there is either time or SE modularization
|David M. Lloyd||11/28/2012|
|David M. Lloyd||11/29/2012|
[javaee-spec users] Re: bundle overriding