Alternatives for naming automatic modules, and a proposal (#AutomaticModuleNames)

[Alan Bateman]

On 25/04/2017 14:51, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> :
> Has this been documented anywhere? Because all modules in one
> classloader seems like entirely the wrong default and I don't
> understand the trade off. Clashes on concealed packages will not be
> popular.
Changing visibility would be a huge change, esp. when you consider the 
interop between the class path and modules. Lots of APIs and code have 
issues with anything but parent delegation. We've been down this road 
before in the exploration phase of Project Jigsaw. The proposal for JDK 
9 is to keep things simple: no changes to visibility, no fundamental 
changes to the initial class loader arrangement. I fully expect this 
will be re-visited in the future, probably in conjunction with 
changes/upgrades to several APIs. It's something that would likely take 
an entire release to bake.

-Alan