Closing out still more open issues

Remi Forax forax at
Fri Apr 7 09:27:22 UTC 2017

I agree that the issues marked with an '*' should be deferred.

As i have already said, i think that allowing to have different versions of the same module inside the same ModuleLayer should be possible but this should be solved at the VM level and not at the JDK level.

The current class file format allows to specify version of the dependencies, so there are enough pieces in place to let people to experiment and try to come up with a solution.


----- Mail original -----
> De: "mark reinhold" <mark.reinhold at>
> À: jpms-spec-experts at
> Envoyé: Jeudi 6 Avril 2017 22:54:34
> Objet: Closing out still more open issues

> In early March I posted proposals to resolve the following issues without
> implementing the changes that they suggest, either because they can be
> done in a future release or because they're not worth doing in the first
> place [1]:
>  #AvoidConcealedPackageConflicts *
>  #ExportAnnotation
>  #MultiModuleExecutableJARs
>  #MultiModuleJARs
>  #MultipleModuleVersions *
>  #ReifiedModuleGraphs
>  #ResourceExistenceAndSize
>  #StaticLayerConfiguration *
>  #VersionsInModuleNames
> One EG member raised a concern about the three proposals marked with
> an asterisk above; otherwise there were no responses or only positive
> responses, so I've marked all these issues as resolved.
> No one objected to my more recent #MoveModuleAndLayerClasses proposal,
> and one member supported it, so I've marked that as resolved as well.
> The #AutomaticModuleNames and #ModuleNameInManifest issues are still
> under discussion.  I have simple proposals in mind for the remaining
> three, #ModuleNameSyntax, #StandardModuleAttributes, and #VersionSyntax,
> which I will post shortly.
> - Mark
> [1]

More information about the jpms-spec-experts mailing list