Revised proposal for #AutomaticModuleNames

[Remi Forax]

On May 4, 2017 11:21:38 PM GMT+02:00, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:
>On 4 May 2017 at 18:38,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:

...

>>   - To increase awareness of when automatic modules are used, and of
>the
>>     consequences of their use, suggest that Java language compilers
>issue
>>     two new types of warnings, and implement these warnings in the
>RI:
>
>Perhaps these should be reconsidered? If the module depends on an
>automatic module with a module name in the manifest, it can be
>considered reasonably stable. Whereas anything depending on a filename
>derived module name is unstable. That isn't being captured by the
>warnings.

an automatic module is still not stable because it exports all packages by default while a real module may only export some of them.

 
>
>Stephen

Rémi 

>
>
>On 4 May 2017 at 18:39,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Thanks to everyone, and especially Stephen Colebourne, Brian Fox, and
>> Robert Scholte, for the extensive feedback.
>>
>>  
>http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2017-May/000687.html
>>
>> TL;DR: Keep automatic modules, bring back the module-name JAR-file
>> manifest attribute, and strongly recommend reverse-DNS module names.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> - Mark

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.