Unnamed module and duplicate package

[David M. Lloyd]

On 03/11/2016 09:23 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> 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.

OK, it just seems odd since javax.transaction.xa has no dependencies on 
anything and thus would seem to be a good candidate to be its own 
module.  This would solve the problem for all time, so it's not really 
clear why that couldn't or shouldn't be done.

-- 
- DML