Suggestion: allow accessible reflection on protected methods of exported types.

[Jochen Theodorou]

On 03.01.2017 18:04, David M. Lloyd wrote:
[...]
> Here's an important point about adoption (these are my own observations,
> not the EG's or my employer's).  One of the effects of the way Java is
> produced and its historical entrenchment is that no matter what happens,
> adoption is more or less inevitable; every prediction of Java's death
> has proven to be false (which of course doesn't stop pundits from doing
> so anyway).

For sure people will be using Java 9 at some point. If they will 
completely work around the module system or actually use it properly is 
an entirely different matter. At no point did I intend to predict the 
death of Java.

> Even if a future Java was terrible by many objective
> measures, its adoption will probably be eventually inexorable.  It would
> take something highly extraordinary to change these basic truths.  This
> is just the nature of the Java ecosystem today.  Lack of adoption is a
> consequence that essentially nobody is worried about, and is really not
> a deterrent to any given proposed change.

But there is a relative lack of adoption. For example I know only very 
few libraries that actually use nio2 instead of "normal" java.io. But 
just using the old and ignoring the new and otherwise updating to the 
newer version of the JVM would still count as adoption... even though it 
not really is. Java9 now is one of the releases that do not allow you to 
simply ignore the new and continue with the old.

> But this just means that it is all the more critical that everyone that
> uses Java in their day to day work to take some degree of responsibility
> to ensure that every language and JDK specification change is reviewed
> for quality.

Quality can mean a lot of things. Any computer virus can contain high 
quality code, still you do not want any. If the intention is wrong, then 
quality control will do nothing.

> The JCP EC consists of many parties; it's my personal
> belief and hope that there will always be EC members (hopefully the
> majority of them in fact) that will listen to the practical concerns of
> the community.

For me jigsaw is an incorporation of not being practical. I am not the 
community, so just because nobody is listening to me doesn´t mean the 
community is ignored... but frankly my impression is the community does 
not know - yet. There was an outreach for 2+ years, yes, but if I 
consider the situation 1 year for example, there had been so many open 
questions to the module system, especially with regards to dynamic 
modules and layers, that it was impractical for me to even start working 
on it. And the situation changed again massively with 
#AwkwardStrongEncapsulation.

For me 100% of my work projects and hobby projects are impacted by 
java9. And that is not because of Groovy alone. Jigsaw made me 
seriously consider leaving the JVM for the first time in almost 20 years.

bye Jochen