Closing out some open issues

[Paul Benedict]

Anyone who cares about grammar would know "requires optional" is awkward
(and horrible) English. It's an oxymoron. It's non-nonsensical.

Since this is all about dependencies, why not be straightforward like this:
dependency requires foo.bar1;
dependency optional foo.bar2;

NB: I did once submit a proposal to add "module", "package", and "class" as
qualifiers to make things explicit. What happened to that? I don't remember
it being accepted or rejected. In any case, it would make more sense in
this scenario:
requires module foo.bar1;
optional module foo.bar2;

Or just use "requires" and "optional" plainly:
requires foo.bar1;
optional foo.bar2;

Cheers,
Paul

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Ali Ebrahimi <ali.ebrahimi1781 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 for "requires optional"
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11 September 2016 at 22:24,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
> > > Proposals for the following issues have been available for evaluation
> > > and experimentation for quite a while now.  Most responses have been
> > > positive and there have been no strong objections, so I've updated
> > > the issue list [1] to mark them as closed.
> > >
> > >   #BootstrapClassLoaderSearchInJVMTI
> > >   #ClassFileAccPublic
> > >   #CompileTimeDependences (`requires static`)
> > >   #CustomizableAutomaticModuleNameMapping
> > >   #ModuleAnnotations
> > >   #ModuleDeprecation
> > >   #ReflectiveAccessByInstrumentationAgents
> > >
> > > Not everyone was thrilled with the choice of `static` as the modifier
> > > on `requires` directives that indicates a compile-time dependence, but
> > > no obviously-better choice has emerged.
> >
> > Given that "exports dynamic" has gone, there is even less reason to
> > use "static" (as there is no "dynamic" equivalent). The simplest
> > alternative is "requires optional", which fits with the existing
> > terminology used by maven for many years and more clearly indicates
> > that users cannot rely on the dependency.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> Ali Ebrahimi
>



-- 
Cheers,
Paul