a compilation issue caused by the order of two 'requires' directives
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Wed Jan 18 12:25:43 PST 2012
On 18/01/2012 19:53, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 11:34 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> When compiled individually then it does appear that there is an
>> issue. I believe foo will compile because the configuration for foo
>> will be computed (won't fail because the bar@>1.0 is an optional
>> dependency). However when it comes to test then it does appear that
>> the order changes changes. Jon - is there any possibility that the
>> order issue is due to the Catalog implementation in javac? If not
>> then I guess this means going through the resolver trace to see what
>> is going on.
> My initial sense is that this is entirely a resolver issue, and that
> we need to look at the resolver trace.
You're probably right but I just tried Dmitry's code and I get the
expected behavior if I install bar and foo into a module library and
compile test specifying that module path. It's only when compiling with
bar and foo on the module path that the ordering seems to matter.
More information about the jigsaw-dev