#LayerPrimitives (was Re: Proposal: #NonHierarchicalLayers)

mark.reinhold at oracle.com mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Mon Feb 27 10:47:04 UTC 2017

2017/2/21 9:05:22 -0800, david.lloyd at redhat.com:
> Logically a non-goal is not an anti-goal, as I have observed many times 
> in the past as well.  Not setting out to do something is not the same 
> thing as forbidding it from being done

Of course not.  It was a non-goal to support bidirectional interoperation
with OSGi.  It turned out that doing so required just a couple of small
changes, however, so we went ahead and did it.

>                                       , especially if it is a minimal 
> change.

The changes you have requested may appear minimal on the surface today.
The impact of those changes over the long term is, however, likely far
from minimal, as I have explained.  Taking both the immediate and
long-term consequences of every change into account is fundamental to
responsible platform stewardship.

> We consider these issue inadequately addressed despite being rejected. 
> By JCP procedures, this obligates us to vote "no".

There is no rule in the JCP that requires you to vote "no" on a JSR if
the JSR fails to achieve a non-goal.

You can choose to vote "no" anyway, of course, if you decide that it is
more important to protect your own narrow interests than it is to support
the broader interests of the entire Java ecosystem.

- Mark

More information about the jpms-spec-observers mailing list