Still driving off the cliff

[David M. Lloyd]

On 02/27/2012 07:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 24/02/2012 18:50, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> Honestly I don't even see the need to actually divide the platform
>> into actual modules. If the desire is to be able to express
>> dependencies on certain features of the platform which would be made
>> optional, then this can be done with module aliases or views or
>> feature dependencies or any number of other ways which don't carry
>> this cost.
>>
> Duke has a beer belly, we need to be able to scale down the platform to
> smaller devices.

Yes I *get* that but the actual pieces of the core platform do not have 
to be modules.  We have modules blinders on here.  You could just as 
easily associate a "feature name" with the optional sections of code, 
and allow a dependency to name a module plus a feature set.  In this way 
you solve the problem just as well, your core platform is still 
componentized, modules which depend on an optional platform feature 
still can express a dependency, and you don't lose your 1:1 relationship 
between a module and a class loader.  You could even call them 
"submodules" if that seems more appropriate.

-- 
- DML