java.bytecode (or similar) module?

Volker Simonis volker.simonis at
Tue Nov 14 13:55:57 UTC 2017

Remi, Dalibor, Alan,

thanks a lot for the explanations. That all sounds reasonable.


On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at> wrote:
> On 14/11/2017 09:11, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> :
>> So then what's the rational to not export the ASM which is included in the
>> JDK anyway? I mean exporting from a module, not from a standard
>> module. Wouldn't that be useful if it is there anyway?
> java.base exporting a non-standard API would be very problematic. It
> immediately falls foul of the design principles laid out in JEP 200. Moving
> it to another module isn't going to work either as java.base cannot depend
> on other modules. Doing so would introduce a circular dependency too.
> Additionally,  as Rémi notes, it's not the full API, it is instead a
> re-packaged and often modified version of ASM N-1. I don't think we want
> anything outside of the JDK modules depending on that. Going forward then
> maybe the JDK will move to using something else.
> -Alan

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list