<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
I'm sorry, David, but this response crosses a line, and this kind of
interaction is not OK. Ron is doing what any responsible architect
would do -- trying to understand the problem that you think you are
solving. (If you think this is unnecessary, then you have a deep
misunderstanding of how the JDK is evolved, and perhaps what you
need to hear is more "philosophy", not less.) But more
importantly, suggesting Ron has no "standing" to speak for the
integrity of the JDK is incorrect, and the words you've chosen are
simply out of line. He is asking the sensible "what problem are you
really trying to solve here" questions that Mark, or I, or Paul, or
Alan, or any of us would be asking (and if anything, asking them
more patiently.) Characterizing responsible stewardship as
"bullying" is simply not OK. <br>
<br>
You certainly have the right to take your ball and go home if you
like -- but then you actually have to _go home_. It's pretty clear,
reading between the lines, that no one is compelled by the arguments
you've made for these changes so far, despite how voluminously
you've tried to make them. I think it's time to move on. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">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".</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>