Legacy classes in a module

[Michal Cierniak]

I would like to add that even if superpackage classes do name their
superpackage in the new world, it wouldn't be difficult to require the
JRE to "rewrite" legacy classes on the fly if they are loaded from a
JAR embedded in a JAM.  In that case, the legacy classes would end up
being members of the superpackage associated with the containing JAM.

We might run into other problems because legacy classes do not
necessarily play by the rules of the new module-aware world but this
is independent of whether we rewrite them to add superpackage
membership info.

Michal

On 5/16/07, Bryan Atsatt <bryan.atsatt at oracle.com> wrote:
> While the current strawman suggests that superpackage classes will have
> modified class files (e.g. naming their superpackage), there is a
> proposal on the table that eliminates this requirement.
>
> If eliminated, the only requirement to include "legacy" classes in a
> superpackage will be to have the superpackage artifact present. In a 277
> module, any mixture of new and "legacy" classes (likely in separate
> jars) could then fall under the umbrella superpackage. And this whole
> issue is eliminated...
>
> // Bryan
>