Security

[David M. Lloyd]

On 02/16/2015 11:04 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
> For example, while it may be implied
> by the 'Non-interference' requirement, it may be desirable to consider
> modules to be sealed, thereby guaranteeing that all classes in a package
> come from the same module.

Meant to comment on this too, just to agree that it is important for a 
package's identity to be connected to the identity of its containing 
module.  I don't think the non-interference requirement quite goes as 
far as it could to stipulate this (though it's arguably more of an issue 
for Encapsulation since it pertains mostly to accessibility).

Relatedly, the Encapsulation point is somewhat weaker than some of its 
elder cousins in the old Jigsaw draft requirements, in that it doesn't 
come out and say that the language needs a per-module class/member 
access level.  I'm not sure if it's just something that we need to visit 
once we start talking about implementation, or if the concept was 
abandoned in favor of visibility-style controls as the requirements 
presently seem to imply, by my reading anyway.

-- 
- DML