Refactoring the Library API

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Mark Reinhold wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>                            It would be much better, IMO, if all the
>> information necessary to evaluate a module dependency graph was
>> directly available in the module-info files themselves.
>>     
>
> What we have now appears to be enough to compute a decent compile-time
> approximation to the run-time context graph.  We do, however, need some
> practical experience with it.
>
> If we need a better approximation, then I see only two ways to add actual
> package information to module-info class files:
>
>   - Have the compiler record member packages in module-info.class.
>
>   - Extend the module compilation-unit syntax and require developers
>     to declare member packages.
>
> I see lots of problems with both alternatives.  Let's hope that the
> simple approximation works well enough.
>
> - Mark
>   

I don't like the idea of having to record package information in the 
module-info file.
I would like to think we can identify Jigsaw "modifiers" to put in the 
requires
declaration such that the resolver can create the correct module graph 
without
requiring any knowledge of the packages in a module.

Separately, I understand why you want to put package information for a 
module
in the library.  That can be done separately, at module installation 
time, and
need not be part of the underlying module resolution algorithm.

-- Jon