nipa at codefx.org
Tue Dec 1 16:31:36 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I summarized each of the J1 talks about Jigsaw. Here's Under The Hood:
If you want to see the original video for a section, hit the
Play-Button next to it.
so long ... Nicolai
On 01.12.2015 16:47, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what
> java would look like if designed right now :), but I was strictly
> speaking about the access modifier for modules. The question is
> basically whether a module-private access modifier was omitted due
> to legacy/migration concerns or something more fundamental.
> Apparently the Under the Hood talk mentions the reason, so I'm
> hoping someone can just quickly mention the reason here.
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:41 AM, <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 2015/12/1 7:22 -0800, vitalyd at gmail.com:
>>> Well, people can get used to just about anything, doesn't mean
>>> it's necessarily the right way. But fundamentally, I'd like to
>>> look at java source/types and be able to infer as much
>>> semantics as possible, this includes visibility. With jigsaw,
>>> this is now blurred for public types. If modules are truly a
>>> first class citizen, they ought to have their own
>>> language-visible access modifier. Let's put it this way --
>>> green field scenario, no legacy code to worry about, is this
>>> still the right choice?
>> In a green-field scenario, with no legacy code to worry about,
>> we probaby wouldn't have packages, protected members, or even
>> non-private constructors -- and we definitely wouldn't have
>> That is not, however, the world that we live in.
>> - Mark
a blog about software development
Free and Open Source Software for the City of Dortmund
nipa at pod.geraspora.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the jigsaw-dev