<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sun JDK to be OSGi modularized</title>
	<atom:link href="http://protocol7.com/archives/2008/12/03/sun-jdk-to-be-osgi-modulized/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://protocol7.com/archives/2008/12/03/sun-jdk-to-be-osgi-modulized/</link>
	<description>Random, useless stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 10:48:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Niklas</title>
		<link>http://protocol7.com/archives/2008/12/03/sun-jdk-to-be-osgi-modulized/comment-page-1/#comment-72597</link>
		<dc:creator>Niklas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:48:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://protocol7.com/?p=1616#comment-72597</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I should have myself a bit more clear in the post. I\&#039;m aware of the plan to build their own module system, and I don\&#039;t find that odd. The important thing is that for developers, this interoperates fully with OSGi and that we don\&#039;t get two developer-level module system. Now, the following statements in Reinholds post does worry me: \&quot;This module system will be available for developers to use in their own code, and will be fully supported by Sun\&quot;. This might be interpreted as Sun will provide another module system for developers, but at least it will not have the JCP blessing (whatever that is worth these days).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='microid-521136dce7428310f4ec7169ef3ffc66bda4c671'>Yeah, I should have myself a bit more clear in the post. I\&#8217;m aware of the plan to build their own module system, and I don\&#8217;t find that odd. The important thing is that for developers, this interoperates fully with OSGi and that we don\&#8217;t get two developer-level module system. Now, the following statements in Reinholds post does worry me: \&#8221;This module system will be available for developers to use in their own code, and will be fully supported by Sun\&#8221;. This might be interpreted as Sun will provide another module system for developers, but at least it will not have the JCP blessing (whatever that is worth these days).</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Bartlett</title>
		<link>http://protocol7.com/archives/2008/12/03/sun-jdk-to-be-osgi-modulized/comment-page-1/#comment-72580</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Bartlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:26:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://protocol7.com/?p=1616#comment-72580</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s NOT based on OSGi. You have to read what Reinhold says carefully... they will actually build their own &quot;simple, low-level&quot; module system that will &quot;interoperate&quot; with OSGi.

They will also make this module system available for developers to use in their own code, but they will not standardise it through the JCP, so if you do use it you will be tied to one Java implementation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='microid-307df98b79c2d3e7a447a7c652204bb964391674'>It&#8217;s NOT based on OSGi. You have to read what Reinhold says carefully&#8230; they will actually build their own &#8220;simple, low-level&#8221; module system that will &#8220;interoperate&#8221; with OSGi.</p>
<p>They will also make this module system available for developers to use in their own code, but they will not standardise it through the JCP, so if you do use it you will be tied to one Java implementation.</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

