Question on Implied readability

Ali Ebrahimi ali.ebrahimi1781 at
Tue Nov 3 08:22:34 UTC 2015

Thanks Alex,
So this is currently not fully implemented.
I think this would have many use cases in EE land where we would need
override some modules.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at>

> On 11/2/2015 3:32 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at>
>> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2015 20:02, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>>> Thanks, I see the issue. The reason it didn't duplicate for me is because
>>> I hadn't dropped the requires
>>> So the bug is implied readability across layers when the same named
>>> module
>>> exists in multiple layers. In this case should read at 1.
>>> The (@2) is the same configuration as is confusing the
>>> code. We'll need to fix this.
>>> So, you say can not read and why?
>> Based on implied readability module implicitly reads, in
>> other word have requires;
>> and because is co-layer with, so
>> module should reads
>> override for
>> How this specified in spec?
> It's currently underspecified in Configuration::resolve as "A readability
> graph is then constructed to take account of implicitly declared
> dependences (requires public)."
> We'll have to think about the implication of com.baz in layer1 sometimes
> offering a 'requires public' on in layer1, and sometimes offering a
> 'requires public' on in layer2, depending on who is reading com.baz
> in layer1.
> Alex


Best Regards,
Ali Ebrahimi

More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list