Concerns with JPMS spec and Jigsaw implementation

Remi Forax forax at
Mon May 1 22:12:20 UTC 2017

Hi Tim,
while i'm also disappointed by the outcome of some discussions.
I would like to know precisely what are the issues you would like us to have a closer consensus.   

I do not like the blog post of Scott Stark mostly because a lot of references are from 2015 so a lot things are outdated in that post.
So apart from the automatic modules, what are points you want to discuss more ?


----- Mail original -----
> De: "Tim Ellison" <Tim_Ellison at>
> À: "jpms-spec-experts" <jpms-spec-experts at>
> Cc: jpms-spec-comments at
> Envoyé: Vendredi 28 Avril 2017 17:48:43
> Objet: Re: Concerns with JPMS spec and Jigsaw implementation

> mark.reinhold at wrote on 27/04/2017 21:02:09:
>> 2017/4/14 20:18:03 -0700, Scott Stark <sstark at>:
>> > Via our participation in JSR 376/JPMS we have raised a number of
> concerns
>> > regarding the implementation decision in Jigsaw as well as the scope
> and
>> > consensus of the expert group efforts. We, along with other EC
> members, and
>> > EG members have compiled a document that details these concerns. These
>> > concerns are outlined in the following blog:
>> >
> deficiencies-in-jigsawjsr-376-java-platform-module-system-ec-member-concerns
>> This document does not raise any substantive technical issues that have
> not
>> already been discussed in the JSR 376 EG.
> I believe that document demonstrates there is still work required to bring
> the
> community closer to an agreement on the proposed standard.
> Even where the technical issues have already been discussed in the EG, it
> is
> incumbent upon this group to make best efforts to understand and resolve
> any
> differences.  If people feel that their argument has not been considered,
> then
> it is not surprising that frustration ensues.
> I am personally disappointed that the move to call the Public Review
> ballot
> was made despite explicit objection from a number of EG members.
>> > As it stands, Red Hat will not vote for the approval of this public
> review
>> > draft of JPMS as it is not in the best interest of the Java community.
>> Acknowledged.
> IBM is also voting "no" which reflects our position that the JSR is not
> ready at
> this time to move beyond the Public Review stage and proceed to Proposed
> Final
> Draft.
> The JSR 376 Expert Group and the public have raised a number of reasonable
> issues
> and concerns with the current public review draft of the specification
> that
> warrant further discussion and resolution.  We advocate work continuing
> amongst
> all members of the Expert Group to address the issues documented on the
> mailing
> lists.
> IBM would like to see closer consensus amongst the entire Expert Group
> before
> this specification proceeds to the next step.
> Regards,
> Tim
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

More information about the jpms-spec-observers mailing list