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

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Wed Apr 26 11:25:18 UTC 2017

On 25/04/2017 09:48, Juergen Hoeller wrote:

> :
> For the time being, we'll have to keep focusing on the use of our framework
> jars as automatic modules... which works fine for us so far. Even if the
> lack of transitive dependencies is a bit of a nuisance, there is enough
> value for somebody choosing to adopt Jigsaw at the application level.
Juergen - can you say any more about the issue with transitive 
dependences? I suspect your mean you are forced to run with 
`--add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH` or the equivalent with the aggregator 
module to ensure all the automatic modules are resolved, is that right?

One recent change to be aware is that automatic modules are now resolved 
more eagerly that previously. Specifically, if one automatic modules is 
resolved (required by an explicit module or --add-modules) then all 
observable automatic modules will also be resolved. This really helps 
the usability when a bunch of JARs are moved from the class path to the 
module path.


More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list