This is a weekly update on new Java 7 information. All current and previous information is maintained on my Java 7 page.
Java Modules (JSR 277, 294)
Glyn Normington posted a great overview of the various efforts around Java modularity that are currently in progress. This post ties together the JSR 277 and 294 specs which are working on build modularity into the Java language for Java 7 and also covers the OSGi JSR 291 which has been the source of source recent controversy. Glyn is somehow involved in all of these, so he obviously has an informed opinion that is worth your time if you care about such things. Neil Bartlett responded to Glyn’s post and expressed skepticism that more support was needed beyond what OSGi already offers. Glyn responded himself to argue that support for modularity is needed in the language and that this is complementary to what OSGi provides, not essential. Glyn also posted some info on how classloaders might change with JSR 277.
I have done some work with Eclipse/OSGi and I think that there definitely is a case to be made for embedding more support for access constraints at the module (multi-package) level directly in the language. I think what OSGi does is in general fairly great but I frequently see use cases where I want to mark a set of packages as “hidden” within a module or have need for a simple plugin-loading system (simpler than needing bundles, manifests, and all the rest of the junk that goes along with OSGi).
Beans binding (JSR 295) and the Swing Application Framework (JSR 296)
With all the desktop Java conferences going on, it was inevitable that we would see some interesting desktop Java 7 news this week. Probably the most visible news is Roman Strobl’s demo of beans binding and the SAF which starts to tie together the Java 7 Swing efforts in a public way for the first time.
Daniel Stephan posted on various data binding frameworks such as JGoodies and JFace and how they compare to JSR 255.
Shannon Hickey announced he’s taking over for Scott Violet as the spec lead on JSR 295 and that it’s “almost ready” for public release.
In the wake of the activity after the FCM proposal was released, Neal Gafter posted on how we should be comparing closure proposals not just by point examples they all can do but on the expressiveness that they allow and what new avenues the more powerful proposals like BGGA might open up.
More info: Closures