Unnamed module and duplicate package

[Alan Bateman]

On 11/03/2016 14:52, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>
> What about javax.transaction.xa?  Ideally we won't just throw that 
> into some unnamed module right?
>
> With it being a part of java.sql though, it's going to be pretty tough 
> to separate out.  Can it not at least be its own module which can be 
> upgraded in a consistent way with java.transaction? I guess it's just 
> not clear to me how this is going to work.  From my perspective, it 
> would be at the least more organizationally convenient to treat all 
> the SE+EE modules in the same way.
The proposal is for the java.sql module to own and export 
javax.transaction.xa. You'll see it in the summary table that I linked 
to in the mail.

On the surface then it might look odd but we've explored many options. 
The good news is that javax.transaction.xa is slow moving, I'm not aware 
of any changes in 10+ years. We have of course discussed this with the 
relevant spec leads in the JCP and we of course understand that it 
requires a bit of coordination in the event that JSR 907 decides some 
day to update something in the xa package.


>
> That would definitely be ideal from a security standpoint, especially 
> if in this context "non-core" means "all except for 'java.base'"... or 
> as close as possible to it.
We are currently down to ~25 modules defined to the boot loader. With 
more effort then we could reduce this a bit (maybe by 4 or 5 modules).

-Alan.