Spec re-organization/update proposal...

[Stanley M. Ho]

Hi Bryan,

Bryan Atsatt wrote:
> I propose that we re-organize and update the next draft of the spec to 
> achieve the following:
> 
> 1.  Clearly identify and separate the two main elements of the spec:
> 
>    a. Framework (i.e. api/spi)
>    b. Default implementation (i.e. .jam distribution format, tools, 
> usage examples, etc.)
> 
> 2. Ensure that the framework is the primary focus of the spec, 
> identifying it as the means by which any implementation integrates with 
> the SE compiler and runtime.
> 
> 3. Clarify that any implementation will benefit from the integration 
> story provided by the framework (I describe four concrete benefits in 
> http://atsatt.blogspot.com/2008/04/jsr-277-could-be-great-for-osgi.html).
> 
> 4. Clarify the rationale for the existence of a new implementation.

Agreed on all four points.

> 5. Recognize the importance of building a second implementation to 
> validate the framework design.
> 
> 6. Recognize OSGi as the right choice for that second implementation:
> 
>    a. A formal JCP adopted module standard.
>    b. Wide market adoption.

JSR 277 certainly wants to enable multiple implementations of the 
Repository and ModuleDefinition APIs, especially by OSGi containers.

It would be unusual for a normative spec to mention particular 
implementations (except the default implementation). However, we are 
happy to mention OSGi in a non-normative section that discusses the 
benefits of integration between module systems.

- Stanley