Jason... you summarized it very succinctly and perfectly.
Jeff
On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Jason T. Greene wrote:
> I think Jeff is frustrated because we are missing his underlying point. What I think hes saying (and I am sure he will correct me), is that we need standardized modularity badly. Some are sick of the packaging and portability challenges in Java EE, and are considering other options.
>
> To his point we should be careful not to equate perceptions of low OSGi use with users not wanting modularity.
>
> On 7/26/12 9:28 AM, Reza Rahman wrote:
>> I can understand that this is something you feel strongly about, but
>> kindly get a hold of yourself (and I know you can do better :-)). I do
>> talk with everyone that I can about these issues as frequently as I can
>> simply because I care (and have absolutely no personal stake in any of
>> this). The reality that I see consistently matches up very closely with
>> what Jevgeni is saying rather than what you are saying, sorry.
>>
>> On 7/26/2012 10:19 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> I don't get the support for the marketing drivel. We all come from
>>> different backgrounds. Be it Jboss modules, OSGI, roll your own, or
>>> whatever. If you want data, go look at the Jboss modules, Geronimo
>>> (Websphere CE), Glassfish, Equinox, Karaf, Felix user mailing lists
>>> and the number of blogs on the subject. Go do your own count of
>>> users... That's *not* marketing... Thats *not* anecdotal... That's our
>>> users. That is who we represent. That's *real* data. guess what...
>>> They *use* our designs. Let's please stop the BS at this point. This
>>> is a dead horse. If you have something useful to contribute, please
>>> do it...but let's stop the +1s on the loaded marketing material.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Reza Rahman <reza_rahman_at_lycos.com
>>> <mailto:reza_rahman_at_lycos.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (and I can guarantee that I'm a dispassionate observer on this one
>>>> :-)).
>>>>
>>>> On 7/26/2012 8:23 AM, Jevgeni Kabanov wrote:
>>>>> I'm glad we agree on the sentiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The paper is NOT based on customer data. This was a community-wide
>>>>> poll with 1450+ answers. It agrees with other larger polls, e.g. one
>>>>> conducted by Eclipse. It certainly is not my side of the fence, it's
>>>>> what the world looks like, at least in the outline.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was that OSGi adoption is fairly low, and it's the
>>>>> poster-boy of Java modularity story. Is there an actual need outside
>>>>> the largest shops? Can we accommodate the largest shops in the spec
>>>>> without impacting the majority of the community? These are important
>>>>> questions that need answering before we commit to any one solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> JK
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Founder & CEO of ZeroTurnaround
>>>>> @ekabanov | Skype: ekabanov | http://www.linkedin.com/in/ekabanov
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, 26 July 2012 at 15:17, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jevgeni,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to disagree vehemently with your fist comment. Your
>>>>>> presentation of your paper is strawman. Your paper/analysis is from
>>>>>> your customers which is your side of the fence. You have a small
>>>>>> slice of a different sort of customer and your survey is directed
>>>>>> at people who use JRebel and its likes which is anti OSGi in
>>>>>> nature. Different strokes for different folks but I am certainly
>>>>>> not calling yours anecdotal... just strawman. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't stating OSGi is the end-all. But it does fit a need for
>>>>>> what people want form what *I* see. People want the same thing
>>>>>> with LiveRebel. The areas I listed is what LiveRebel helps to
>>>>>> define as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence, what you produce is exactly what I want and what your last
>>>>>> statement pretty much summed up. We need something that allows
>>>>>> someone to plug in whatever modular system for now, be it OSGi,
>>>>>> JBoss Modules, or even LiveRebel. You stated exactly what I want
>>>>>> to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 6:57 AM, Jevgeni Kabanov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This all is very anecdotal. In our survey most folks did not
>>>>>>> indicate that they use OSGi or anything like it:
>>>>>>> http://files.zeroturnaround.com/developer-productivity-report/zeroturnaround-developer-productivity-report-2012.pdf
>>>>>>> (only a third are our customers, the rest just the folks across
>>>>>>> the community that responded)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were also a bunch of open questions and although the no
>>>>>>> downtime provisioning of application is a great concern, there
>>>>>>> were fairly little issues with multiple library version. And
>>>>>>> modularity without a good isolation model is not a way to solve
>>>>>>> hot update or the class loading issues you mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid we're trying to solve the issues of the largest shops,
>>>>>>> which are always more complex than the rest and probably do need a
>>>>>>> custom solution built on OSGi or whatnot. And they already have
>>>>>>> access to OSGi on the Glassfish, Websphere and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to accommodate OSGi as an optional
>>>>>>> extension of the spec and just define better interoperation? I'm
>>>>>>> afraid that baking modularity into the Java EE spec will introduce
>>>>>>> more complexity than it's worth for most of the Java EE ecosystem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Founder & CEO of ZeroTurnaround
>>>>>>> @ekabanov | Skype: ekabanov | http://www.linkedin.com/in/ekabanov
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 26 July 2012 at 14:41, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Craig... thanks for the response and I darned well agree with
>>>>>>>> a lot in this email ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> answers in line...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2012, at 7:30 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 07/25/2012 09:53 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In my world, I am seeing users pushing modularity in front of
>>>>>>>>>> JavaEE and we are really missing this boat. A large section of
>>>>>>>>>> my clients are moving to OSGi stacks picking and choosing what
>>>>>>>>>> they want in their stacks, with some building their own JavaEE
>>>>>>>>>> light containers (JTA, JPA).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you explain in a bit more detail what problems they're
>>>>>>>>> encountering that leave them forced to take this option?
>>>>>>>>> Application and business problems, not just the common "we need
>>>>>>>>> X because we've always used it" issues I see come up sometimes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are what I usually hear:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) The comments made come along the line of the thick stack and
>>>>>>>> having resources used by major components that aren't used.
>>>>>>>> Complaint is EE-bloat.
>>>>>>>> 2) Ability to hot deploy/undeploy without corrupting the
>>>>>>>> classloaders. Example... try to deploy/deploy a war many times in
>>>>>>>> a standard JavaEE container until an OutOf Memory exception occurs.
>>>>>>>> 3) Ability to provision applications and services on the fly
>>>>>>>> without having to reboot - think cloud-like Applications As A
>>>>>>>> Service (AaaS).
>>>>>>>> 4) Ability to prevent class clashing with multiple versions.
>>>>>>>> Wanting to run multiple applications in the same container
>>>>>>>> without worry for parent classloading corruption - the class tree
>>>>>>>> classloading issues.
>>>>>>>> 5) Dependent execution. The ability to run transitive
>>>>>>>> dependencies on other applications/jars, much like a Unix inti.d
>>>>>>>> or Windows services model. i.e. an application can;t run until
>>>>>>>> its other dependent applications are running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OSGi seems to wor in this model, albeit with a great amount of pain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have people who really must swap out the JTA
>>>>>>>>> implementation in a an app server with a different one in order
>>>>>>>>> to meet business or application requirements? JPA I fully
>>>>>>>>> understand, but JTA? I'm surprised and interested by that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, many of my clients are interested in the Blueprint JTA
>>>>>>>> implementation or use a local resource like Spring. Hence those
>>>>>>>> who want to use Spring local transactions can rip out the JTA, or
>>>>>>>> if they need XA, they wire up Aries/Blueprint and enable
>>>>>>>> aries-transaction. I see this choice a lot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm having very frustrating problems with the lack of
>>>>>>>>> plugability of some of the upper layer stuff myself. Hibernate
>>>>>>>>> is a very poor fit for the needs of an app I'm working on, but
>>>>>>>>> getting EclipseLink to integrate well into AS7 is a major pain.
>>>>>>>>> I appreciate the need for pluggability at least at the higher
>>>>>>>>> levels of the stack, and it's been a major source of pain for me
>>>>>>>>> since I started working with Java EE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My comments were specific to CDI and some low level, tightly
>>>>>>>>> integrated components in the server like the EJB3
>>>>>>>>> implementation, JTA, JCA, etc. These are tightly integrated and
>>>>>>>>> - from what I've seen in AS7's sources and on the bug tracker -
>>>>>>>>> the existing SPIs appear inadeaute to allow them to simply be
>>>>>>>>> swapped out and replaced. I'd *love* to be wrong about this, but
>>>>>>>>> my experience even trying to swap out theoretically pluggable
>>>>>>>>> things like JPA implementations argues against it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to see a certain baseline of infrastructure locked
>>>>>>>>> in place as something thatthe app server does not have to
>>>>>>>>> support replacing (it still may if it chooses). In exchange,
>>>>>>>>> certain higher level components like JSF2, JPA2, maybe JAX-RS,
>>>>>>>>> etc would *have* to support being swapped out with either
>>>>>>>>> app-bundled implementations or modules installed in the app
>>>>>>>>> server. This would give vendors realistic test targets and
>>>>>>>>> narrow the number of configurations to something (almost)
>>>>>>>>> testable. It would also make it clearer which specs need really
>>>>>>>>> complete SPIs as a priority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for needing a module system: I could not possibly agree more,
>>>>>>>>> and think that things like CDI *should* be modules within the
>>>>>>>>> app server - for app server maintainability and good design.
>>>>>>>>> Sure enough you'll see that all the low level components in AS7
>>>>>>>>> are modules. I just don't think the spec should require the
>>>>>>>>> server vendor to support applications swapping out arbitrary
>>>>>>>>> modules; that needs to be confined to modules implementing specs
>>>>>>>>> where there's a good enough SPI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The trouble with the module system issue is that JBoss modules
>>>>>>>>> is probably a bit too basic, and OSGi is (IMO) convoluted and
>>>>>>>>> horrible to work with. There isn't a really good candidate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I completely agree with you... but I am just concerned we are
>>>>>>>> going to miss the boat if we keep putting this off. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Craig Ringer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>>>> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2437/5147 - Release Date:
>>>>> 07/22/12
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2437/5156 - Release Date: 07/26/12
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat