a compilation issue caused by the order of two 'requires' directives

[Jonathan Gibbons]

On 01/18/2012 11:34 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> When compiled individually then it does appear that there is an issue. 
> I believe foo will compile because the configuration for foo will be 
> computed  (won't fail because the bar@>1.0 is an optional dependency). 
> However when it comes to test then it does appear that the order 
> changes changes. Jon - is there any possibility that the order issue 
> is due to the Catalog implementation in javac? If not then I guess 
> this means going through the resolver trace to see what is going on. 

My initial sense is that this is entirely a resolver issue, and that we 
need to look at the resolver trace.

-- Jon