Module-system requirements, draft 2

[Tim Ellison]

"jpms-spec-experts" <jpms-spec-experts-bounces at openjdk.java.net> wrote on 
25/03/2015 22:52:12:
> Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.  I've posted draft 2 of the
> requirements document, here:
> 
>   http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/reqs/02
> <snip>

Last few comments:

(a) Just to ensure this is not misinterpreted, perhaps consider rephrasing

|  - _Protection domains_ --- At run time it must be possible to associate
|    the code in modules with protection domains, for the purpose of
|    granting security permissions.

as

  - _Protection domains_ --- At run time it must be possible to associate
    modules with protection domains, for the purpose of granting security
    permissions to code in those modules.


(b)
|  - _Non-prescriptive version strings_ --- Version strings must have a
|    precisely-defined syntax and be totally ordered, but otherwise their
|    format should be as general as possible in order to accommodate
|    existing popular version-string schemes.


I'm trying to reconcile the requirement for version strings to be
"non-prescriptive" and have a "precisely-defined syntax".  The need for a
defined syntax is not reflected elsewhere, so is it sufficient that they 
are
simply totally ordered, and otherwise left to the needs of the 
configuration
management systems that assemble coherent sets of modules?


(c) This version doesn't incorporate the "Overrideable encapsulation" 
requirement
described here

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2015-February/000020.html

or the clarification suggested for _Referential integrity_ to read "that 
each
module can be configured only to reference" rather than "each module can 
only be
configured to reference" 


Regards,
Tim

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU