[External] : Re: Inconsistency with service loading by layer or by class loader

[David Lloyd]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 9:47 AM Ron Pressler <ron.pressler at oracle.com>
wrote:

> Here’s why we find your suggestions/descriptions so difficult to wrap our
> heads around:
>

Who is "we"? Are you speaking for others, and if so, whom?

In any event, I'm not going to respond to this argument, and I'll tell you
why. It's a bad-faith argument, repeating points I have already responded
to, and I find your attitude to be dogmatic and offensive. I don't need to
further justify our use case to you personally. I have explained myself
more than adequately; if you actually cared to understand our use case, I
believe that your line of questioning would be very different. Our products
make good use of this effective and simple design and have done so since
the days of Java 6. The platform's module system is in fact already 95%
compatible with our design (not by accident), lacking literally two methods
that would bring us the rest of the way towards allowing our design to use
platform modules. You still seem uninterested in actually understanding our
motivation for using modules, because you keep trying to tell me what our
motivation is instead of listening to what I have been telling you. But
regardless, none of this warrants a protracted philosophical argument.
Nothing I propose requires a reimagining of the principles of the JPMS. You
are certainly not anywhere near successfully bullying me into believing
that I should abandon our well-proven implementation design. Your position
within Oracle, and even your work on virtual threads, as significant as it
may be, certainly does not suddenly make you the arbitrator of the valid
use of this or any other part of the JDK. We have plenty of OpenJDK
committers and authors here at Red Hat too, in fact, and we too have made
contributions of worth.

As I said before, philosophy and principles may inform a specification, but
in the end, if the specification allows our use case then it is by
definition valid, until/unless that specification is changed - for which
there is a well defined process which I am now utilizing. If you find that
personally repulsive, I am sorry to say that is not in any way my problem.
If however you have a technical argument pertaining to the proposed change,
you are more than welcome to present it reasonably and specifically, just
as Alan (who actually wrote most of this code, by the way) has done.
I'm sorry if you find this dissatisfying, but I have many responsibilities,
and if my experience has taught me anything, it's that arguing in this
manner is not a good use of my time (or anyone's time). As they say, "life
is short".

--
- DML • he/him
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/attachments/20241218/015752f6/attachment-0001.htm>