JCP “rubberstamping” and Eclipse.org project disarray?
So JSR #291 (Dynamic Component Support for Java), a.k.a. OSGi R4, has been approved. It is interesting to read the concerns expressed in SE Executive Committee’s voting comments. There is a huge overlap with the work that is being done under JSR #277 - that project looks kind of dead in the water now. Exactly how the JCP SE/EE can allow two competing module specifications to evolve is beyond me but it happened so it would seem the JCP is now broken. That said, JCP cannot expect to write every new specification from scratch and even not meddling with de-facto specifications (e.g. DOM) is also ocassionally appropriate.
Unfortunately, Eclipse.org is also starting to exhibit similar cracks. A cursory look at the architectures of many of the top level projects (WTP, STP, TPTP, BIRT etc.) shows the lack of intra-project cooperation is resulting in frameworks that simply don’t integrate with one another in they ways we all want them to. I’m not sure whether the PMCs are responsible for this failure or if it is also the committer’s responsibility to “fit in” to the larger Eclipse eco-system better.
The end result is a selection of overlapping frameworks (and derived vertical commercial products) that will not peacefully co-exist on a single Eclipse runtime or integrate in any meaningful manner. So much for re-usability. Of course Eclipse.org are trying to get their release processes in order (and I hope that effort works out) but architectural inconsistencies and overlaps in the platforms is a much larger and deeper rooted problem altogether.
1 Comment to JCP “rubberstamping” and Eclipse.org project disarray?
Leave a comment
What I'm Doing...
- Weird, Jeff Stelling (brilliant Sky Sports 'Gillette Soccer Saturday' anchor) is to be the new Countdown host. He might be good... 6 hrs ago
- Merging Irish banks until only BOI & AIB exist is terrible idea. Their assets are too expensive to be 'saved' if required(>100% of I ... 10 hrs ago
- I've got a ticket for the Pumas game tomorrow...can't wait! 13 hrs ago
- @donncha OO now has a native OS X build of v3. Latest neooffice is still cut from OO v2 source still I think so it's probably a bit behind. 13 hrs ago
- @EvertB Wondering if anyone 'in the know' could comment on status of irish mobile operator network capacity? 20 hrs ago
- More updates...
Posting tweet...
Blogroll
LinkRoll
Category Cloud
amazon api app apple atom atompub australia banks beacon berlin blogging blosxom capeclear content copyright data dev drm dublin eclipse economy facebook firefox food football fowa future games google hardware identity internet ireland irish java junk linux mac media microsoft mobile movies music n800 net nooked oauth openid opensocial opml osgi oss patents politics polls process rails railsconf rest rss ruby search soa social software spam sport tech travel trip tv uk us vodafone wayoutthere web2.0 web services why xml yahoo youtube
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- d harris on How many James Bond films are there?
- rud0y on How many James Bond films are there?
- Fergus Burns on Moving On
Archives
Photos
|


[...] In this post Mike refers (and answers?) to a blog posting from John O’Shea. John is complaining about the architecture and interoperability of several Eclipse top level projects (named WTP, STP, TPTP, BIRT). A cursory look at the architectures of many of the top level projects (WTP, STP, TPTP, BIRT etc.) shows the lack of intra-project cooperation is resulting in frameworks that simply don’t integrate with one another in they ways we all want them to. [...]