Proposal: #ModuleNameCharacters (revised)

[mark.reinhold at oracle.com]

2016/12/10 7:24:18 -0800, david.lloyd at redhat.com:
> On 12/10/2016 01:50 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> On December 9, 2016 11:05:02 PM GMT+01:00, david.lloyd at redhat.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> So... essentially a custom module system has to generate binary
>>> descriptors?  That's going to be a real pain.
>> ...
>> 
>> No, i hope it's more that ModuleDescriptor will be an interface.
>> So we can have our own module descriptor builder.
> 
> Well, maybe we can build on this idea: what about making 
> ModuleDescriptor.Builder non-final, so we can push validation logic into 
> separate overridable methods?  This way the default behavior is 
> consistent, and it's much harder to accidentally bypass the logic, but 
> it's also still easy to provide a customized scheme.

This is easier said than done, and I'm skeptical that the result would
be of use to more than an extraordinarily small number of developers.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the very, very few people who
will want unusual module names to roll their own binary descriptors.

- Mark