Feature complete?

[Vitaly Davidovich]

>
> In the Under the Hood talk then Alex touches on the topic as to why it
> isn't opt-in at the type level.


Is there a tl;dr version? :)

public != accessible will be a surprise at first but not hard to get used
> to. We've been able to all the frameworks and heavy users of
> core-reflection in the JDK (JMX, RMI, CORBA, JAX-* etc.) working as
> explicit modules without too much back strain.


Well, people can get used to just about anything, doesn't mean it's
necessarily the right way.  But fundamentally, I'd like to look at java
source/types and be able to infer as much semantics as possible, this
includes visibility.  With jigsaw, this is now blurred for public types.
If modules are truly a first class citizen, they ought to have their own
language-visible access modifier.  Let's put it this way -- green field
scenario, no legacy code to worry about, is this still the right choice?


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>
wrote:

>
> On 01/12/2015 14:42, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>
>>
>> Alan,
>>
>> What's the reason a new java/bytecode access modifier to indicate
>> module-private wasn't implemented? I agree that public not being really
>> public is a big wart.
>>
>> In the Under the Hood talk then Alex touches on the topic as to why it
> isn't opt-in at the type level.
>
> public != accessible will be a surprise at first but not hard to get used
> to. We've been able to all the frameworks and heavy users of
> core-reflection in the JDK (JMX, RMI, CORBA, JAX-* etc.) working as
> explicit modules without too much back strain.
>
> -Alan
>