Markus/Mike/all,
Thanks a lot for the discussion on that.
I also see projects suffering from 3rd party libraries added to the
application server or crucial parts like admin consoles on a regular basis.
Actual project code won't work because those add-ons come first on the
classpath and interfere with the dependency chain of projects.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Markus Eisele <myfear_at_web.de> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > Thanks for your feedback, and indeed for all of your active
> contributions to
> > the group.
>
> That is why I am here :) And honestly I'm addicted to Java EE ;)
>
> > The point was to see if we could get a decent bang from an inexpensive
> buck.
>
> A good approach. Very pragmatical. But I'm still not in favor for it.
> Bottom line for me
> is, that it will not change anything significantly.
>
> > Providing me with references reminding me of my previous failed attempts
> to
> > get some kind of modularity into EE were unnecessarily just turning the
> > knife, however ;-)
>
> Wasn't meant to be like this. Sorry. I'm a strong supporter of "having
> modularity" in the platform.
> But I don't want to see a minute spend on things that "only look like"
> and don't truly change anything.
>
> As I said, I believe it would be a good idea to start with kind of a
> "draft requirement document" to collect all the ideas and wishes that
> are around.
> We could also put it on java.net and develop this further until we
> finally reach the point when there is either time or SE modularization
> ....
>
+1
>
> WDYT?
>
> Gruss
> M
>
Regards,
--
Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member | Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel
Language Champion | Java Godfather
Twitter @wernerkeil | #Java_Social | #EclipseUOMo | #OpenDDR
Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil