Implied readability + layers

[Ali Ebrahimi]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at oracle.com>
wrote:

> On 11/5/2015 1:30 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>
>> Hi alan,
>> So far quite disappointing!
>>
>> But I think Alex's last response on this topic says opposite of this:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>
> Alan and I have discussed this. It's not possible for com.baz in layer1 to
> "switch" which com.bar it depends on.


I never said we do version switch for com.bar in com.baz in layer1 depend
on its consumer module.
I just say we use com.bar at 1 for layer1's modules and com.bar at 2 for layer2's
modules.
You may say it is possible (not always) com.bar at 1 passed to layer2 and we
what we can do.
This is simple: Or transfer com.foo to layer1 or refactor that to 2 module
com.foobaz and com.foobar2 and transfer com.foobaz to layer1.

See my previous posts for current implementation unexpected results.

This is simple for all module system and module developers module and
module consumers  and there would not be any puzzle.

-- 

Best Regards,
Ali Ebrahimi