Discussion: #MutableConfigurations, #LazyConfigurationAndInstantiation, #CyclicDependences, & #DiscardableModules

[mark.reinhold at oracle.com]

References:

  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#MutableConfigurations
  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#LazyConfigurationAndInstantiation
  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#CyclicDependences
  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#DiscardableModules

In light of Thomas Watson's initial attempt to achieve bidirectional
interoperation between OSGi and JPMS [1], my subsequent suggestion that
this can be done indirectly with the present design by modeling a dynamic
module as a sequence of JPMS modules over time [2] if given a solution to
#NonHierarchicalLayers [3], and then Watson's validation of that approach
[4], it appears that we no longer have any need to address the above four
issues, at least as far as OSGi is concerned.

David: Is this approach workable for JBoss Modules as well?  If so then
I'd like to close these issues out; if not then I'd like to understand
if there are additional, smaller changes that would make this approach
acceptable while avoiding the complexity of complete solutions to these
issues.

- Mark


[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-comments/2016-August/000062.html,
    or http://blog.osgi.org/2016/08/osgi-with-java-modules-all-way-down.html
[2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-October/000410.html
[3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-October/000442.html
[4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-November/000449.html