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

[Ron Pressler]

I wasn’t trying to convince you, let alone bully you, to change anything in your design. Since you are trying to convince us to change something in ours, I told you what kind of information we’d need that would clearly demonstrate the problem(s) with the feature as it currently is and when used as recommended, such as performance numbers. I really was trying to help you help us help you actually get something done.

— Ron

> On 18 Dec 2024, at 16:48, David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 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