Question on Implied readability

[Alex Buckley]

On 11/2/2015 3:32 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/2015 20:02, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>> Thanks, I see the issue. The reason it didn't duplicate for me is because
>> I hadn't dropped the requires com.bar.
>>
>> So the bug is implied readability across layers when the same named module
>> exists in multiple layers. In this case com.foo should read com.bar at 1.
>> The com.bar (@2) is the same configuration as com.foo is confusing the
>> code. We'll need to fix this.
>>
>> So, you say com.foo can not read com.bar(@2) and why?
> Based on implied readability module com.foo implicitly reads com.bar, in
> other word have requires com.bar;
> and because com.bar(@2) is co-layer with com.foo, so
> module com.foo should reads com.bar(@2).
> com.bar(@2) override com.bar(@1) for com.foo.
> How this specified in spec?

It's currently underspecified in Configuration::resolve as "A 
readability graph is then constructed to take account of implicitly 
declared dependences (requires public)."

We'll have to think about the implication of com.baz in layer1 sometimes 
offering a 'requires public' on com.bar in layer1, and sometimes 
offering a 'requires public' on com.bar in layer2, depending on who is 
reading com.baz in layer1.

Alex