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

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Wed Apr 26 12:30:19 UTC 2017

On 26/04/2017 12:55, Juergen Hoeller wrote:

> :
> You're saying that such transitive resolution of automatic modules 
> happens implicitly now, i.e. "requires spring.context" implicitly 
> makes spring.core visible to the application module when both 
> spring.context and spring.core are automatic modules on the module 
> path? That would be great, of course, since it makes the Spring 
> ecosystem significantly nicer to use as automatic modules for the time 
> being! We have plenty of interfaces and classes that depend on types 
> from several modules (e.g. aggregate several interfaces into a 
> facade), so there are plenty of corresponding transitive dependencies 
> between our own modules. With our Maven POMs, those are all brought in 
> automatically, so people are really used to just referring to 
> spring-context, not even being aware that this brings in spring-core.
You got it. It significant helps the usability at the risk of resolving 
additional automatic modules that might not be needed.


More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list