Proposal: #ModuleNameCharacters (revised)

[David M. Lloyd]

This would be much better from my perspective, assuming that we let the 
Layer (or something) do the validation so that it can be overridden... 
Note that this may also have application for #VersionSyntax.

On 12/13/2016 02:12 AM, forax at univ-mlv.fr wrote:
> I think part of the problem is that currently the builder enforces some rules and it should not,
> the fact that a ModuleDescriptor is well formed or not should be checked by the configuration and not by the builder itself.
>
> Checks that need to be done:
> - no repetition, the ModuleDecriptor interface uses Set so this is enforced by design
> - all referenced packages should be present in packages,
>   currently, the builder see that the other way around, i think it's a mistake.
>   This parts should be moved when resolving a configuation
> - referenced modules exist, this part is already checked when resolving the configuration
> - metadata associated with the module descriptor, version, main-class, hashes, all of these should be specified through a kind of Map API,
>   so build tool/language developers, JDK maintainers could add any metadata when they want.
>
> Actions:
> - the builder should only build a descriptor and not check if it is well formed or not
> - when resolving the configuration, additional checks should be done to verify that a module descriptor is well formed
> - add a way to specify additional metadata to the module descriptor.
>
> cheers,
> Rémi
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "mark reinhold" <mark.reinhold at oracle.com>
>> À: "David M. Lloyd" <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>, jpms-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net
>> Envoyé: Mardi 13 Décembre 2016 00:47:30
>> Objet: Re: Proposal: #ModuleNameCharacters (revised)
>
>> 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

-- 
- DML